Datasets:

notaphoenix

/

debateorg_w_effect_for_conservative_subset

like 0

I challenge my opponent to establish why it is "unfair" of a burden for employers to hire "any damn body they please." On this point, I would like my opponent to establish why an employer should be allowed to just hire white Christian men and exclude all others if they choose. Is that really what you are saying? I most definitely disagree for the following reason: Allowing a business to profit at the expense of protecting equality is effectively anarchy and it is, in fact, a neglect of equality to allow such discrimination to occur. There is little so essential to a person's life in the United States as the right to have a job, make a living, and support onesself and/or one's family. Allowing non-government entities within the United States (such as an employer) to conspire against this to exercise racist or other discriminatory beliefs is merely a neglectful dereliction, on the government's part, toward protecting equality. If it is not what you were trying to say, then I am unclear as to what your point or meaning was and would ask you to clarify. As for over-representation of minorities in the criminal justice system, unfortunately that's unaddressable on a direct basis in terms of whether they are convicted (and by extension any resultant over-representation) since any person who commits a crime must be punished, but if there is any truth to the notion that people who are desperate, such as minorities still struggling with unequal opportunities (and from they are unequal, I hope you will concur regardless of whether or not you believe all institutions have an obligation to do their best to fix it, from standpoint that, statistcally speaking, if you are born to, say, black, you have a much smaller chance of 'making it' well in the country than someone born white), then this over-representation in the criminal population should follow suit with over-representation of minorities among the impoverished and in inverse to the under-representation in our nations upper echelons. I am not certain that more-time-for-the-same-time is present as strongly as you claim, and whether that's the result of discriminatory sentencing from judges (easily addressable) or juries (not so easily, must be addressed as a more general re-education of our society against racist tendancies). Education, housing, employment ... these very basics of life in the United States are foundations for having a life. Presuming your are Caucasian-majority, how much of any of these could be reduced out of your control from you before you could no longer have as good of a life as you have had? And going back to the gist of "Affirmative Action is reverse discrimination" -- not an exact quote but the general idea you presented in your arguments of "Equality means equality" -- its a contradiction to my statements of why it is necessary because the inequalities that exist are our government and society's fault, and steps must be taken to correct them. However, you did not give a reason as to why my reasonings were flawed, you merely say they are and give your own contrasting version. I will give another example to explain why an apparant inequality to correct a previous inequality is necessary: Imagine a child abused by their parents. By your logic, beyond taking the child out of the abuse, the child deserves no special treatment, no extra help in coping, no restitution from the abusive parents, no protection from the parents' friends if they did not like the child having turned on the parents by abusing them, that simply not being abused anymore is sufficiently equality restored. I quite disagree.

PervRat

I challenge my opponent to establish why it is "unfair" of a burden for employers to hire "any damn body they please." On this point, I would like my opponent to establish why an employer should be allowed to just hire white Christian men and exclude all others if they choose. Is that really what you are saying? I most definitely disagree for the following reason: Allowing a business to profit at the expense of protecting equality is effectively anarchy and it is, in fact, a neglect of equality to allow such discrimination to occur. There is little so essential to a person's life in the United States as the right to have a job, make a living, and support onesself and/or one's family. Allowing non-government entities within the United States (such as an employer) to conspire against this to exercise racist or other discriminatory beliefs is merely a neglectful dereliction, on the government's part, toward protecting equality. If it is not what you were trying to say, then I am unclear as to what your point or meaning was and would ask you to clarify. As for over-representation of minorities in the criminal justice system, unfortunately that's unaddressable on a direct basis in terms of whether they are convicted (and by extension any resultant over-representation) since any person who commits a crime must be punished, but if there is any truth to the notion that people who are desperate, such as minorities still struggling with unequal opportunities (and from they are unequal, I hope you will concur regardless of whether or not you believe all institutions have an obligation to do their best to fix it, from standpoint that, statistcally speaking, if you are born to, say, black, you have a much smaller chance of 'making it' well in the country than someone born white), then this over-representation in the criminal population should follow suit with over-representation of minorities among the impoverished and in inverse to the under-representation in our nations upper echelons. I am not certain that more-time-for-the-same-time is present as strongly as you claim, and whether that's the result of discriminatory sentencing from judges (easily addressable) or juries (not so easily, must be addressed as a more general re-education of our society against racist tendancies). Education, housing, employment ... these very basics of life in the United States are foundations for having a life. Presuming your are Caucasian-majority, how much of any of these could be reduced out of your control from you before you could no longer have as good of a life as you have had? And going back to the gist of "Affirmative Action is reverse discrimination" -- not an exact quote but the general idea you presented in your arguments of "Equality means equality" -- its a contradiction to my statements of why it is necessary because the inequalities that exist are our government and society's fault, and steps must be taken to correct them. However, you did not give a reason as to why my reasonings were flawed, you merely say they are and give your own contrasting version. I will give another example to explain why an apparant inequality to correct a previous inequality is necessary: Imagine a child abused by their parents. By your logic, beyond taking the child out of the abuse, the child deserves no special treatment, no extra help in coping, no restitution from the abusive parents, no protection from the parents' friends if they did not like the child having turned on the parents by abusing them, that simply not being abused anymore is sufficiently equality restored. I quite disagree.

Politics

Affirmative-Action-is-a-necessary-responsibility/1/

== REBUTTALS == "Your position is becoming so ridiculous that I need only restate it in simple terms in order to show the contradictions. First of all is the assertion that our government, which has only been around for a couple hundred years, is somehow responsble for our thought processes. Now in the next round it is "government and society." Addressing racial (and other) prejudices would seem to require an understanding of the underlying situation. Your analysis of the history of inequality seems to lack that understanding, and therefore one can certainly be skeptical of any solution you propose." Con is actually asserting the U.S. government was never itself responsible for oppressive and discriminatory legislations that denied minorities the right to have liberty on par with white men, have an education or own property? First slavery, then Jim Crow ... are these just liberal conspiracies that never actually happened? I call -that- no only ridiculous, but conspiracy-theory-delusional! It is difficult to even try to tackle most of what Con wrote in his response, since so much is based on his notion that there never was a government-imposed inequality that's continued generation-to-generation such that its effects continue to this day. I re-emphasize but will not waste readers' time repeating my reasoning I set out on this matter of why the government is responsible for the original cause and the ongoing lingering damage to equality that continues to this day. Being so difficult to address the rest of Con's arguments for the previous round, I can find only one general "outlier" I think I can even try to grasp: the notion of vengeance. First I have to throw it back in his face, this notion of a "vengeance mentality." It contradicts his argument he made that government did nothing to create discrimination ... if it hadn't, what sort of vengeance mentality could there be back at the government? Do you think the proponents of Affirmative Action feel vengeance is due against a government because it did not create racial inequality when it should have? Off that back-in-your-face argument, I'll presume that you were merely arguing from a different perspective in which yes, the government did create inequality, but that efforts like Affirmative Action are purely vengeful in motivation and not just at all. Let me re-summarize my position: The government created harmful inequality. The government is therefore responsible for the ongoing damage, even if the government amended its active inequality and ended its direct-responsibility anti-equality legislations. The anti-equality legislations created a situation that lasts today -- the over-representation of minority groups in undesireable classes such as poverty-stricken families and the prison population, and under-representation in terms of wealth and political power. How can these inequalities ever truly end if no effort is made to correct the inequalities to begin with? I feel the government has ignored my points I have reasoned out and chalked them up as ridiculous, not even bothering to go point by point, and has instead come up with a ridiculous notion that the government has never had any responsibility for creating inequality. The Constitution itself once included written-in acknowledgements of slavery, such as the "three-fifths amendment," in addition to congressional leglislations concerning the severe crime of a black man trying to escape slavery. When Emancipation was declared, slavery laws were replaced with "Jim Crow" laws that tried to be less blatantly obvious but were no less of an intentional effort on the government's part to maintain a white supremacy by keeping minorities (on an individual basis of one white man vs. one black man) from having equal rights, equal say, equal power and equal access. I really cannot envision having to prove to anyone that slavery and Jim Crow laws -- laws being the very basis of the government's will -- were discrimination that was directly and willfully the government's fault and responsibility. If the notion escapes you, then I am afraid I cannot come to common terms to form a constructive debate. For those who, whatever their feelings on Affirmative Action, do agree the government was "bad" for its slavery and Jim Crow laws, I hope my reasonings are at least respectable by you and you can follow to see how I arrive at my conclusion, even if it is not something you can easily follow for your own beliefs. I do believe I have established my case, and that I have won the argument. My opponent, being the challenger, gets the "final inning." I would like to thank Con for taking up this debate with me, and I look forward to reading Con's final response, I hope it can give me a better picture of his/her stance and reasoning. Thank you!

PervRat

== REBUTTALS == "Your position is becoming so ridiculous that I need only restate it in simple terms in order to show the contradictions. First of all is the assertion that our government, which has only been around for a couple hundred years, is somehow responsble for our thought processes. Now in the next round it is "government and society." Addressing racial (and other) prejudices would seem to require an understanding of the underlying situation. Your analysis of the history of inequality seems to lack that understanding, and therefore one can certainly be skeptical of any solution you propose." Con is actually asserting the U.S. government was never itself responsible for oppressive and discriminatory legislations that denied minorities the right to have liberty on par with white men, have an education or own property? First slavery, then Jim Crow ... are these just liberal conspiracies that never actually happened? I call -that- no only ridiculous, but conspiracy-theory-delusional! It is difficult to even try to tackle most of what Con wrote in his response, since so much is based on his notion that there never was a government-imposed inequality that's continued generation-to-generation such that its effects continue to this day. I re-emphasize but will not waste readers' time repeating my reasoning I set out on this matter of why the government is responsible for the original cause and the ongoing lingering damage to equality that continues to this day. Being so difficult to address the rest of Con's arguments for the previous round, I can find only one general "outlier" I think I can even try to grasp: the notion of vengeance. First I have to throw it back in his face, this notion of a "vengeance mentality." It contradicts his argument he made that government did nothing to create discrimination ... if it hadn't, what sort of vengeance mentality could there be back at the government? Do you think the proponents of Affirmative Action feel vengeance is due against a government because it did not create racial inequality when it should have? Off that back-in-your-face argument, I'll presume that you were merely arguing from a different perspective in which yes, the government did create inequality, but that efforts like Affirmative Action are purely vengeful in motivation and not just at all. Let me re-summarize my position: The government created harmful inequality. The government is therefore responsible for the ongoing damage, even if the government amended its active inequality and ended its direct-responsibility anti-equality legislations. The anti-equality legislations created a situation that lasts today -- the over-representation of minority groups in undesireable classes such as poverty-stricken families and the prison population, and under-representation in terms of wealth and political power. How can these inequalities ever truly end if no effort is made to correct the inequalities to begin with? I feel the government has ignored my points I have reasoned out and chalked them up as ridiculous, not even bothering to go point by point, and has instead come up with a ridiculous notion that the government has never had any responsibility for creating inequality. The Constitution itself once included written-in acknowledgements of slavery, such as the "three-fifths amendment," in addition to congressional leglislations concerning the severe crime of a black man trying to escape slavery. When Emancipation was declared, slavery laws were replaced with "Jim Crow" laws that tried to be less blatantly obvious but were no less of an intentional effort on the government's part to maintain a white supremacy by keeping minorities (on an individual basis of one white man vs. one black man) from having equal rights, equal say, equal power and equal access. I really cannot envision having to prove to anyone that slavery and Jim Crow laws -- laws being the very basis of the government's will -- were discrimination that was directly and willfully the government's fault and responsibility. If the notion escapes you, then I am afraid I cannot come to common terms to form a constructive debate. For those who, whatever their feelings on Affirmative Action, do agree the government was "bad" for its slavery and Jim Crow laws, I hope my reasonings are at least respectable by you and you can follow to see how I arrive at my conclusion, even if it is not something you can easily follow for your own beliefs. I do believe I have established my case, and that I have won the argument. My opponent, being the challenger, gets the "final inning." I would like to thank Con for taking up this debate with me, and I look forward to reading Con's final response, I hope it can give me a better picture of his/her stance and reasoning. Thank you!

Politics

Affirmative-Action-is-a-necessary-responsibility/1/

I am a sophomore at a liberal arts college that is planning on instating affirmative action hiring programs for faculty members. This is in response to recent events on campus in which minority students called for more representation of racial minorities and homosexuals on the faculty. What is interesting to me is that while all students are calling for more African American faculty members, nobody is addressing a major issue that has had a large impact on my education so far--the lack of diverse opinions amongst the faculty members. Almost every single professor at my college falls on one end of the political spectrum. And while many are respectful and tolerant of diverse political opinions, many aren't. I've had to actually drop classes because I feared for my grades in the face of a strongly politicized atmosphere in the classroom which is intolerant of opinions which are different from those of the professor. Many of my fellow students have voiced concerns about an air of political indoctrination that is present in the classroom. Even if professors do not penalize students grade-wise for having different opinions, many professors do have a clear political agenda to push, which they do through assigning readings and texts and carefully planning the syllabus around particular analytic methods. Many present only one side of an issue. It is amazing to me that in our institutions of higher learning, we insist upon diverse faculty and student bodies, but diversity is absent where it really counts and where it has a REAL impact on the quality of education we recieve--diversity of opinion, which fosters open debate, deliberation and freedom of thought, the cornerstones of liberal pluralist democracy. Institutions should make a point of hiring faculty on all facets of the political spectrum--liberal, conservative, traditionalist, progressive, capitalist, communist, etc., and not just consider race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. in their hiring practices. This is essential for an atmosphere which promotes these values.

renegade_rightie

I am a sophomore at a liberal arts college that is planning on instating affirmative action hiring programs for faculty members. This is in response to recent events on campus in which minority students called for more representation of racial minorities and homosexuals on the faculty. What is interesting to me is that while all students are calling for more African American faculty members, nobody is addressing a major issue that has had a large impact on my education so far--the lack of diverse opinions amongst the faculty members. Almost every single professor at my college falls on one end of the political spectrum. And while many are respectful and tolerant of diverse political opinions, many aren't. I've had to actually drop classes because I feared for my grades in the face of a strongly politicized atmosphere in the classroom which is intolerant of opinions which are different from those of the professor. Many of my fellow students have voiced concerns about an air of political indoctrination that is present in the classroom. Even if professors do not penalize students grade-wise for having different opinions, many professors do have a clear political agenda to push, which they do through assigning readings and texts and carefully planning the syllabus around particular analytic methods. Many present only one side of an issue. It is amazing to me that in our institutions of higher learning, we insist upon diverse faculty and student bodies, but diversity is absent where it really counts and where it has a REAL impact on the quality of education we recieve--diversity of opinion, which fosters open debate, deliberation and freedom of thought, the cornerstones of liberal pluralist democracy. Institutions should make a point of hiring faculty on all facets of the political spectrum--liberal, conservative, traditionalist, progressive, capitalist, communist, etc., and not just consider race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. in their hiring practices. This is essential for an atmosphere which promotes these values.

Education

Affirmative-action-programs-in-colleges-and-universities-should-account-for-diversity-in-opinions./1/

You make the statement that "affirmative action is also problematic, in that bringing a minority into a majority group can cause for disagreements." Aren't debate, disagreement, and deliberation the cornerstones of intellectual progress? How are we supposed to get an education if we are exposed to only one narrow viewpoint throughout the entire course of our college careers? This is a cop-out argument, to me. If we have affirmative action to bring blacks into a white majority, and if we have affirmative action to bring Muslims into a Protestant majority at a particular institution, please explain to me how it would be harmful to bring a conservative minority into a liberal majority in order to provide a more well-rounded education for students. Affirmative action is an abomination in my sight. It is absolutely incredible that after going through a civil rights movement, we can go back to judging people on the basis of the color of their skin, their religious affiliation, their sexual orientation, etc., rather than on their MERIT. However, the basis of my argument is this: affirmative action is inevitable at a college such as mine. So if every group which feels marginalized or underrepresented gets to have a say in the college's hiring practices, then I want one too. The African American students get to request more blacks on the faculty? The GLBT students get to request more GLBT professors? Fine! But if that's the case, then I don't think it's out of line for me to want to see conservative faculty members who share my viewpoints. And while we're at it, I also want a Lutheran professor on the political science faculty, and a professor of Hungarian descent, and maybe even a professor who shares my musical interests. A little reductio ad absurdum, I know, but all I'm saying is that if every underrepresented group is getting a say in who the college hires, then I want my say too. And, going back to my original argument, I don't think that my requesting of politically diverse faculty members is out of line. In fact, I think it is essential to the quality of education that I and my fellow students receive.

renegade_rightie

You make the statement that "affirmative action is also problematic, in that bringing a minority into a majority group can cause for disagreements." Aren't debate, disagreement, and deliberation the cornerstones of intellectual progress? How are we supposed to get an education if we are exposed to only one narrow viewpoint throughout the entire course of our college careers? This is a cop-out argument, to me. If we have affirmative action to bring blacks into a white majority, and if we have affirmative action to bring Muslims into a Protestant majority at a particular institution, please explain to me how it would be harmful to bring a conservative minority into a liberal majority in order to provide a more well-rounded education for students. Affirmative action is an abomination in my sight. It is absolutely incredible that after going through a civil rights movement, we can go back to judging people on the basis of the color of their skin, their religious affiliation, their sexual orientation, etc., rather than on their MERIT. However, the basis of my argument is this: affirmative action is inevitable at a college such as mine. So if every group which feels marginalized or underrepresented gets to have a say in the college's hiring practices, then I want one too. The African American students get to request more blacks on the faculty? The GLBT students get to request more GLBT professors? Fine! But if that's the case, then I don't think it's out of line for me to want to see conservative faculty members who share my viewpoints. And while we're at it, I also want a Lutheran professor on the political science faculty, and a professor of Hungarian descent, and maybe even a professor who shares my musical interests. A little reductio ad absurdum, I know, but all I'm saying is that if every underrepresented group is getting a say in who the college hires, then I want my say too. And, going back to my original argument, I don't think that my requesting of politically diverse faculty members is out of line. In fact, I think it is essential to the quality of education that I and my fellow students receive.

Education

Affirmative-action-programs-in-colleges-and-universities-should-account-for-diversity-in-opinions./1/

Affirmative action should NEVER be used in colleges and universities. Ever. It is a practice which utterly destroys the concept of merit and emphasizes arbitrary differences like race above all other qualifications for a position. However, affirmative action will probably never be rid of. As long as there are majorities and minorities, the minority will always claim to be marginalized and underrepresented, and colleges and universities will try to remedy it by affirmative action, despite its moral and ethical problems. Thus, I argue that if colleges want to have a truly representative, diverse, and equal faculty, they must consider ideological diversity in their hiring practices. Ideological differences are probably most likely to influence the education that students receive at a particular institution. Diverse opinions are essential for debate, deliberation and all things that contribute to an effective education. However, by only hiring professors who subscribe to a particular political ideology, colleges and universities in America are suppressing free speech and free opinions, and in many cases are punishing students who do not adhere to the predominant "acceptable" ideology. Thus, if affirmative action is to be used, it cannot possibly be considered all-inclusive if diversity of opinion is not taken into account.

renegade_rightie

Affirmative action should NEVER be used in colleges and universities. Ever. It is a practice which utterly destroys the concept of merit and emphasizes arbitrary differences like race above all other qualifications for a position. However, affirmative action will probably never be rid of. As long as there are majorities and minorities, the minority will always claim to be marginalized and underrepresented, and colleges and universities will try to remedy it by affirmative action, despite its moral and ethical problems. Thus, I argue that if colleges want to have a truly representative, diverse, and equal faculty, they must consider ideological diversity in their hiring practices. Ideological differences are probably most likely to influence the education that students receive at a particular institution. Diverse opinions are essential for debate, deliberation and all things that contribute to an effective education. However, by only hiring professors who subscribe to a particular political ideology, colleges and universities in America are suppressing free speech and free opinions, and in many cases are punishing students who do not adhere to the predominant "acceptable" ideology. Thus, if affirmative action is to be used, it cannot possibly be considered all-inclusive if diversity of opinion is not taken into account.

Education

Affirmative-action-programs-in-colleges-and-universities-should-account-for-diversity-in-opinions./1/

*First of all, I would like to state that I am in favor of affirmative action. I am practicing countering things that I ever support. Vote on my arguments- not many stance, please.* Affirmative action was created mainly as a solution to the issue of civil rights. However, it prevents those who actually deserve jobs or positions from receiving them. Let's say, for example, that a well-qualified liberal professor was trying for the same position as a conservative professor without as much education. If the college was liberal, and supported affirmative action, they would most likely chose the conservative professor. But choosing this person as your professor would prevent students from receiving the education that they deserve. Affirmative action is also problematic, in that bringing a minority into a majority group can cause for disagreements. These could even lead to violence, especially when they relate to religious matters (such as gay marriage).

t3hbrian

*First of all, I would like to state that I am in favor of affirmative action. I am practicing countering things that I ever support. Vote on my arguments- not many stance, please.* Affirmative action was created mainly as a solution to the issue of civil rights. However, it prevents those who actually deserve jobs or positions from receiving them. Let's say, for example, that a well-qualified liberal professor was trying for the same position as a conservative professor without as much education. If the college was liberal, and supported affirmative action, they would most likely chose the conservative professor. But choosing this person as your professor would prevent students from receiving the education that they deserve. Affirmative action is also problematic, in that bringing a minority into a majority group can cause for disagreements. These could even lead to violence, especially when they relate to religious matters (such as gay marriage).

Education

Affirmative-action-programs-in-colleges-and-universities-should-account-for-diversity-in-opinions./1/

[Definition - Agnostic] 1. A person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. 2. A person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study. <URL>... I affirm the resolution that Agnosticism is a meaningless position, for the main reason that it is applicable to everyone in the world. Agnosticism is a position about knowledge, not belief. Other positions, such as theism and atheism, are positions about belief. This is where you get terms such as agnostic atheist and agnostic theist, which basically translates to a person who holds that God exists/doesn't exist but does not know for certain. To make my argument more clear, I will argue that in essence, an agnostic atheist is really just an atheist, the agnostic addition is meaningless. [Definition - Atheism] 1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. <URL>... A problem in this ensuing debate of agnosticism vs. atheism, is the misunderstandings of each positions definitions. Now, though the dictionary definition of atheism is accurate, I want to make an important clarification. An atheist lacks the belief in all the deities that have been thus far presented as the real "god"; atheism rejects all these candidates. It does not mean that atheists know all the proposed gods do not exist, but we do not believe. There is still a remote possibility that gods such as Jesus and Krishna are real. Neither do atheists reject that a god exists in the universe that hasn't already been proposed. There may very well be a deity, and the only way to know it does not exist is to have infinite knowledge of the universe, and I'd love to meet an atheist who can claim to have that. One may know not know if proposition X is true, but they will either believe it is true or false. Are there a-FSMs and agnosti-FSMs? (FSM = Flying Spaghetti Monster). Of course not, no one "holds their judgement" about the truth value of such a claim. If God is to be unfalsifiable through science, then there will always be that degree of uncertainty, and this why we do not know for sure if God exists or not, but we believe if he does or not. In summary, Agnosticism is a position about knowledge. Atheism/Theism is a position about belief. The metaphysical claims about God are inherently not able to be known for certainty. This is why agnosticism is a meaningless label.

TheSkeptic

[Definition - Agnostic] 1. A person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. 2. A person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study. http://dictionary.reference.com... I affirm the resolution that Agnosticism is a meaningless position, for the main reason that it is applicable to everyone in the world. Agnosticism is a position about knowledge, not belief. Other positions, such as theism and atheism, are positions about belief. This is where you get terms such as agnostic atheist and agnostic theist, which basically translates to a person who holds that God exists/doesn't exist but does not know for certain. To make my argument more clear, I will argue that in essence, an agnostic atheist is really just an atheist, the agnostic addition is meaningless. [Definition - Atheism] 1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. http://dictionary.reference.com... A problem in this ensuing debate of agnosticism vs. atheism, is the misunderstandings of each positions definitions. Now, though the dictionary definition of atheism is accurate, I want to make an important clarification. An atheist lacks the belief in all the deities that have been thus far presented as the real "god"; atheism rejects all these candidates. It does not mean that atheists know all the proposed gods do not exist, but we do not believe. There is still a remote possibility that gods such as Jesus and Krishna are real. Neither do atheists reject that a god exists in the universe that hasn't already been proposed. There may very well be a deity, and the only way to know it does not exist is to have infinite knowledge of the universe, and I'd love to meet an atheist who can claim to have that. One may know not know if proposition X is true, but they will either believe it is true or false. Are there a-FSMs and agnosti-FSMs? (FSM = Flying Spaghetti Monster). Of course not, no one "holds their judgement" about the truth value of such a claim. If God is to be unfalsifiable through science, then there will always be that degree of uncertainty, and this why we do not know for sure if God exists or not, but we believe if he does or not. In summary, Agnosticism is a position about knowledge. Atheism/Theism is a position about belief. The metaphysical claims about God are inherently not able to be known for certainty. This is why agnosticism is a meaningless label.

Religion

Agnosticism-Is-A-Meaningless-Position/1/

I would like to apologize in advance for my confusion. I was aiming to argue that an agnostic atheist should be thought of as an atheist, and not with the agnostic addition added to it, or having agnostic as a position independent in itself. I realize that there are theists who believe to have full knowledge that God exists (despite how irrational this is). If my opponent wishes to point this out as a reason to vote against me, then by all means he can do so. I typed my opening argument in high speed (mom making me go to sleep) and realize my error. I have made the point that an atheist is one who lacks the belief in all the candidates of god proposed thus far. To be able to say with full knowledge that a supernatural entity can be proven to be nonexistent is to be able to say that one has infinite knowledge of the universe. I argue that atheists believe that no postulated deity exists, but for the possibly unmentioned an atheist has no warrant to say on the matter. By itself, agnosticism is about knowledge, not about belief. One can not will him/herself to not believe whether or not god exists. Our belief is based on the evidence supported, as much as theists want to say on the otherwise. We do not will ourselves to believe otherwise. At all, agnosticism would probably be only effective at discerning those who are ignorant and those who are not.

TheSkeptic

I would like to apologize in advance for my confusion. I was aiming to argue that an agnostic atheist should be thought of as an atheist, and not with the agnostic addition added to it, or having agnostic as a position independent in itself. I realize that there are theists who believe to have full knowledge that God exists (despite how irrational this is). If my opponent wishes to point this out as a reason to vote against me, then by all means he can do so. I typed my opening argument in high speed (mom making me go to sleep) and realize my error. I have made the point that an atheist is one who lacks the belief in all the candidates of god proposed thus far. To be able to say with full knowledge that a supernatural entity can be proven to be nonexistent is to be able to say that one has infinite knowledge of the universe. I argue that atheists believe that no postulated deity exists, but for the possibly unmentioned an atheist has no warrant to say on the matter. By itself, agnosticism is about knowledge, not about belief. One can not will him/herself to not believe whether or not god exists. Our belief is based on the evidence supported, as much as theists want to say on the otherwise. We do not will ourselves to believe otherwise. At all, agnosticism would probably be only effective at discerning those who are ignorant and those who are not.

Religion

Agnosticism-Is-A-Meaningless-Position/1/

My opponent has made excellent arguments, and I will have to forfeit this debate. My opponent has won this debate, and I praise him for his arguments. I know when I have lost (started this debate too fast) , and I thank my opponent for taking this debate, and teaching me a lil' something along the way. So yeah, sounds stupid, but vote for...CON.

TheSkeptic

My opponent has made excellent arguments, and I will have to forfeit this debate. My opponent has won this debate, and I praise him for his arguments. I know when I have lost (started this debate too fast) , and I thank my opponent for taking this debate, and teaching me a lil' something along the way. So yeah, sounds stupid, but vote for...CON.

Religion

Agnosticism-Is-A-Meaningless-Position/1/

Agnosticism is not a meaningless position. First, a semantics argument. My opponent himself already established at least two meanings of Agnosticism. Thus, it cannot be considered meaningless. However, I know what my opponent meant and will argue the actual issue here. My opponent claims that agnosticism is meaningless because it applies to everyone. Unfortunately for my opponent, there are many people to which Agnosticism cannot be applied. First, let us realize that agnosticism is not even a default position. Agnosticism is an _explicit_ belief that the issue of god is unknown [and impossible to know]. That means that every person who has not contemplated the issue of whether or not the existence/nature of God is known is automatically NOT an agnostic. One cannot have come to the conclusion that God is unknowable if one has not even considered the question. By this token, 0 babies are agnostics, as are many people who simply haven't bothered thinking about this issue. So there's some meaning to the term. It at least signifies that its bearer has contemplated the question of knowledge of god. Now, let me show you even more meaning. Consider that the term does not apply to whether you actually know about god or not, but whether you think it is possible to know. Just as a person who has not considered the issue is not an agnostic, neither is a person who THINKS that they have knowledge of God. Many people think they _know_ that God exists, and these people are not agnostic. I think at least myself and my opponent would agree that they are ignorant, but they are not agnostic. This furthers the meaning we can get from the label - not only does it signify that the bearer has contemplated the issue, but it also signifies that the person has come to the much more rational conclusion that he or she is not capable of knowing the truth about God. An agnostic atheist is an atheist who believes that he doesn't/can't know for sure whether a god exists, but he doesn't believe in any god. A non-agnostic atheist would be an atheist who not only doesn't believe in any gods, but also thinks that he or she KNOWS that there are no gods. An agnostic theist is a person who believes in a god, but also believes that he or she cannot be certain about said beliefs. A non-agnostic theist is a person who believes in a god, and also believes that he or she KNOWS that this god exists. So you see, agnostic is far from meaningless as a label. There's a world of difference between the agnostic atheist and the non-agnostic atheist, between the agnostic theist and the non-agnostic theist. A label with such significance is far from meaningless. I'm fairly certain I've now addressed the entirety of my opponent's points and made a strong case for my side of the resolution. I await my opponent's reply.

beem0r

Agnosticism is not a meaningless position. First, a semantics argument. My opponent himself already established at least two meanings of Agnosticism. Thus, it cannot be considered meaningless. However, I know what my opponent meant and will argue the actual issue here. My opponent claims that agnosticism is meaningless because it applies to everyone. Unfortunately for my opponent, there are many people to which Agnosticism cannot be applied. First, let us realize that agnosticism is not even a default position. Agnosticism is an _explicit_ belief that the issue of god is unknown [and impossible to know]. That means that every person who has not contemplated the issue of whether or not the existence/nature of God is known is automatically NOT an agnostic. One cannot have come to the conclusion that God is unknowable if one has not even considered the question. By this token, 0 babies are agnostics, as are many people who simply haven't bothered thinking about this issue. So there's some meaning to the term. It at least signifies that its bearer has contemplated the question of knowledge of god. Now, let me show you even more meaning. Consider that the term does not apply to whether you actually know about god or not, but whether you think it is possible to know. Just as a person who has not considered the issue is not an agnostic, neither is a person who THINKS that they have knowledge of God. Many people think they _know_ that God exists, and these people are not agnostic. I think at least myself and my opponent would agree that they are ignorant, but they are not agnostic. This furthers the meaning we can get from the label - not only does it signify that the bearer has contemplated the issue, but it also signifies that the person has come to the much more rational conclusion that he or she is not capable of knowing the truth about God. An agnostic atheist is an atheist who believes that he doesn't/can't know for sure whether a god exists, but he doesn't believe in any god. A non-agnostic atheist would be an atheist who not only doesn't believe in any gods, but also thinks that he or she KNOWS that there are no gods. An agnostic theist is a person who believes in a god, but also believes that he or she cannot be certain about said beliefs. A non-agnostic theist is a person who believes in a god, and also believes that he or she KNOWS that this god exists. So you see, agnostic is far from meaningless as a label. There's a world of difference between the agnostic atheist and the non-agnostic atheist, between the agnostic theist and the non-agnostic theist. A label with such significance is far from meaningless. I'm fairly certain I've now addressed the entirety of my opponent's points and made a strong case for my side of the resolution. I await my opponent's reply.

Religion

Agnosticism-Is-A-Meaningless-Position/1/

My opponent clarifies what he meant by this debate, although I have indeed successfully debated the resolution already. In fact, I have also debated the very point my opponent says he meant to argue. His claim is that "Agnostic Atheist" is exactly the same as saying "Atheist." This is completely wrong. I concede that it is indeed impossible to know that there is no god without full knowledge of the universe. However, it is not impossible to THINK you KNOW that there is no god. Just as the non-agnostic theist falsely believes he or she KNOWS that there is a god, so too does a non-agnostic atheist falsely believe he or she KNOWS that there is no god. Therefore, there is a distinction between the terms "Atheist" and "Agnostic Atheist." "Atheist" includes people who think that they know there is no god. "Agnostic Atheist" does not include these people, since to be agnostic, you have to think that you do not [and cannot] know whether there is a god or not. Agnosticism isn't about whether you actually have knowledge or not. It's about whether you believe that you have knowledge, and whether you think it's even possible for you to have knowledge on the matter of god. Also, consider that vanilla agnostics exist as well, l people who are neither atheist nor theist [by some definitions]. This requires that we call atheism an explicit belief that there is no god, where theism is the explicit belief that there is. If someone believes that the chance of a god existing is 100%, then they are a non-agnostic theist. If someone believes that the chance of a god existing is anything less than 100% and greater than 50%, they are an agnostic theist. If someone believes that the chance of a god existing is exactly 50% [or does not know whether they think it's less than or greater than 50%], they are an agnostic, and not counted as an atheist or a theist. If someone believes that the chance of a god existing is less than 50% but greater than 0%, they are an agnostic atheist. And finally, if someone believes that the chance of a god existing is 0%, they are a non-agnostic atheist. 100% and 0% chances represent thinking you know for sure whether there is a god or not. These are non-agnostic positions. "Agnostic atheist," as I showed last round and this round, is different than "atheist," since "atheist" includes the group of people who believe there is exactly 0% chance of god existing. And so it is that agnosticism is not a meaningless position, nor a meaningless label when combined with 'atheist.'

beem0r

My opponent clarifies what he meant by this debate, although I have indeed successfully debated the resolution already. In fact, I have also debated the very point my opponent says he meant to argue. His claim is that "Agnostic Atheist" is exactly the same as saying "Atheist." This is completely wrong. I concede that it is indeed impossible to know that there is no god without full knowledge of the universe. However, it is not impossible to THINK you KNOW that there is no god. Just as the non-agnostic theist falsely believes he or she KNOWS that there is a god, so too does a non-agnostic atheist falsely believe he or she KNOWS that there is no god. Therefore, there is a distinction between the terms "Atheist" and "Agnostic Atheist." "Atheist" includes people who think that they know there is no god. "Agnostic Atheist" does not include these people, since to be agnostic, you have to think that you do not [and cannot] know whether there is a god or not. Agnosticism isn't about whether you actually have knowledge or not. It's about whether you believe that you have knowledge, and whether you think it's even possible for you to have knowledge on the matter of god. Also, consider that vanilla agnostics exist as well, l people who are neither atheist nor theist [by some definitions]. This requires that we call atheism an explicit belief that there is no god, where theism is the explicit belief that there is. If someone believes that the chance of a god existing is 100%, then they are a non-agnostic theist. If someone believes that the chance of a god existing is anything less than 100% and greater than 50%, they are an agnostic theist. If someone believes that the chance of a god existing is exactly 50% [or does not know whether they think it's less than or greater than 50%], they are an agnostic, and not counted as an atheist or a theist. If someone believes that the chance of a god existing is less than 50% but greater than 0%, they are an agnostic atheist. And finally, if someone believes that the chance of a god existing is 0%, they are a non-agnostic atheist. 100% and 0% chances represent thinking you know for sure whether there is a god or not. These are non-agnostic positions. "Agnostic atheist," as I showed last round and this round, is different than "atheist," since "atheist" includes the group of people who believe there is exactly 0% chance of god existing. And so it is that agnosticism is not a meaningless position, nor a meaningless label when combined with 'atheist.'

Religion

Agnosticism-Is-A-Meaningless-Position/1/

To my opponent: Thank you for the praise. Perhaps we will meet again sometime in the future on this battlefield of words. To everyone else: You heard the man, vote CON.

beem0r

To my opponent: Thank you for the praise. Perhaps we will meet again sometime in the future on this battlefield of words. To everyone else: You heard the man, vote CON.

Religion

Agnosticism-Is-A-Meaningless-Position/1/

I'm against the notion Guidestone has that alcohol should be prohibited again. I'd like to explore Guidestone's reasoning on this issue.

neokansas

I'm against the notion Guidestone has that alcohol should be prohibited again. I'd like to explore Guidestone's reasoning on this issue.

Politics

Alcohol-should-be-prohibited-again/1/

Good reasons for prohibiting alcohol. I agree with all of your reasoning. I just don't think that since prohibition failed the first time, it would be reenacted. And even if it were reenacted, I seriously doubt it work this time either. It's too ingrained into our traditions, society. It would go back into the black market. I'm sure it slowed down consumption a bit, but I also think it was easy enough to get and supported organized crime, making it more powerful and corruption rampant. So, shall we turn the discussion as to how prohibition would be enforced? Next, how would you propose it would be reenacted? It would take a multi million dollar campaign to reach everyone. We would need dollars donated by big corporations and millions of people. The campaign could be about the health effects, and everything you've outlined. During the first prohibition, some vineyards were allowed to remain for the use of the church so they would be able to contineu their traditions of sacremental ceremonies, etc. Many corrupt ended using the church as a cover for their activities. I think this would also continue. Which of course, I feel would be sad. Just thought that was worth bringing up.

neokansas

Good reasons for prohibiting alcohol. I agree with all of your reasoning. I just don't think that since prohibition failed the first time, it would be reenacted. And even if it were reenacted, I seriously doubt it work this time either. It's too ingrained into our traditions, society. It would go back into the black market. I'm sure it slowed down consumption a bit, but I also think it was easy enough to get and supported organized crime, making it more powerful and corruption rampant. So, shall we turn the discussion as to how prohibition would be enforced? Next, how would you propose it would be reenacted? It would take a multi million dollar campaign to reach everyone. We would need dollars donated by big corporations and millions of people. The campaign could be about the health effects, and everything you've outlined. During the first prohibition, some vineyards were allowed to remain for the use of the church so they would be able to contineu their traditions of sacremental ceremonies, etc. Many corrupt ended using the church as a cover for their activities. I think this would also continue. Which of course, I feel would be sad. Just thought that was worth bringing up.

Politics

Alcohol-should-be-prohibited-again/1/

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

neokansas

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

Politics

Alcohol-should-be-prohibited-again/1/

Economics of Prohibition Prohibition's supporters were initially surprised by what did not come to pass during the dry era. When the law went into effect, they expected sales of clothing and household goods to skyrocket. Real estate developers and landlords expected rents to rise as saloons closed and neighborhoods improved. Chewing gum, grape juice, and soft drink companies all expected growth. Theater producers expected new crowds as Americans looked for new ways to entertain themselves without alcohol. None of it came to pass. Instead, the unintended consequences proved to be a decline in amusement and entertainment industries across the board. Restaurants failed, as they could no longer make a profit without legal liquor sales. Theater revenues declined rather than increase, and few of the other economic benefits that had been predicted came to pass. On the whole, the initial economic effects of Prohibition were largely negative. The closing of breweries, distilleries and saloons led to the elimination of thousands of jobs, and in turn thousands more jobs were eliminated for barrel makers, truckers, waiters, and other related trades. The unintended economic consequences of Prohibition didn't stop there. One of the most profound effects of Prohibition was on government tax revenues. Before Prohibition, many states relied heavily on excise taxes in liquor sales to fund their budgets. In New York, almost 75% of the state's revenue was derived from liquor taxes. With Prohibition in effect, that revenue was immediately lost. At the national level, Prohibition cost the federal government a total of $11 billion in lost tax revenue, while costing over $300 million to enforce. The most lasting consequence was that many states and the federal government would come to rely on income tax revenue to fund their budgets going forward. "Cat and Mouse" Prohibition led to many more unintended consequences because of the cat and mouse nature of Prohibition enforcement. While the Eighteenth Amendment prohibited the manufacture, sale and transportation of intoxicating beverages, it did not outlaw the possession or consumption of alcohol in the United States. The Volstead Act, the federal law that provided for the enforcement of Prohibition, also left enough loopholes and quirks that it opened the door to myriad schemes to evade the dry mandate. One of the legal exceptions to the Prohibition law was that pharmacists were allowed to dispense whiskey by prescription for any number of ailments, ranging from anxiety to influenza. Bootleggers quickly discovered that running a pharmacy was a perfect front for their trade. As a result, the number of registered pharmacists in New York State tripled during the Prohibition era. Because Americans were also allowed to obtain wine for religious purposes, enrollments rose at churches and synagogues, and cities saw a large increase in the number of self-professed rabbis who could obtain wine for their congregations. The law was unclear when it came to Americans making wine at home. With a wink and a nod, the American grape industry began selling kits of juice concentrate with warnings not to leave them sitting too long or else they could ferment and turn into wine. Home stills were technically illegal, but Americans found they could purchase them at many hardware stores, while instructions for distilling could be found in public libraries in pamphlets issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The law that was meant to stop Americans from drinking was instead turning many of them into experts on how to make it. The trade in unregulated alcohol had serious consequences for public health. As the trade in illegal alcohol became more lucrative, the quality of alcohol on the black market declined. On average, 1000 Americans died every year during the Prohibition from the effects of drinking tainted liquor. The Greatest Consequence The effects of Prohibition on law enforcement were also negative. The sums of money being exchanged during the dry era proved a corrupting influence in both the federal Bureau of Prohibition and at the state and local level. Police officers and Prohibition agents alike were frequently tempted by bribes or the lucrative opportunity to go into bootlegging themselves. Many stayed honest, but enough succumbed to the temptation that the stereotype of the corrupt Prohibition agent or local cop undermined public trust in law enforcement for the duration of the era. The growth of the illegal liquor trade under Prohibition made criminals of millions of Americans. As the decade progressed, court rooms and jails overflowed, and the legal system failed to keep up. Many defendants in prohibition cases waited over a year to be brought to trial. As the backlog of cases increased, the judicial system turned to the "plea bargain" to clear hundreds of cases at a time, making a it common practice in American jurisprudence for the first time. The greatest unintended consequence of Prohibition however, was the plainest to see. For over a decade, the law that was meant to foster temperance instead fostered intemperance and excess. The solution the United States had devised to address the problem of alcohol abuse had instead made the problem even worse. The statistics of the period are notoriously unreliable, but it is very clear that in many parts of the United States more people were drinking, and people were drinking more. There is little doubt that Prohibition failed to achieve what it set out to do, and that its unintended consequences were far more far reaching than its few benefits. The ultimate lesson is two-fold. Watch out for solutions that end up worse than the problems they set out to solve, and remember that the Constitution is no place for experiments, noble or otherwise. [1] <URL>...

neokansas

Economics of Prohibition Prohibition's supporters were initially surprised by what did not come to pass during the dry era. When the law went into effect, they expected sales of clothing and household goods to skyrocket. Real estate developers and landlords expected rents to rise as saloons closed and neighborhoods improved. Chewing gum, grape juice, and soft drink companies all expected growth. Theater producers expected new crowds as Americans looked for new ways to entertain themselves without alcohol. None of it came to pass. Instead, the unintended consequences proved to be a decline in amusement and entertainment industries across the board. Restaurants failed, as they could no longer make a profit without legal liquor sales. Theater revenues declined rather than increase, and few of the other economic benefits that had been predicted came to pass. On the whole, the initial economic effects of Prohibition were largely negative. The closing of breweries, distilleries and saloons led to the elimination of thousands of jobs, and in turn thousands more jobs were eliminated for barrel makers, truckers, waiters, and other related trades. The unintended economic consequences of Prohibition didn't stop there. One of the most profound effects of Prohibition was on government tax revenues. Before Prohibition, many states relied heavily on excise taxes in liquor sales to fund their budgets. In New York, almost 75% of the state's revenue was derived from liquor taxes. With Prohibition in effect, that revenue was immediately lost. At the national level, Prohibition cost the federal government a total of $11 billion in lost tax revenue, while costing over $300 million to enforce. The most lasting consequence was that many states and the federal government would come to rely on income tax revenue to fund their budgets going forward. "Cat and Mouse" Prohibition led to many more unintended consequences because of the cat and mouse nature of Prohibition enforcement. While the Eighteenth Amendment prohibited the manufacture, sale and transportation of intoxicating beverages, it did not outlaw the possession or consumption of alcohol in the United States. The Volstead Act, the federal law that provided for the enforcement of Prohibition, also left enough loopholes and quirks that it opened the door to myriad schemes to evade the dry mandate. One of the legal exceptions to the Prohibition law was that pharmacists were allowed to dispense whiskey by prescription for any number of ailments, ranging from anxiety to influenza. Bootleggers quickly discovered that running a pharmacy was a perfect front for their trade. As a result, the number of registered pharmacists in New York State tripled during the Prohibition era. Because Americans were also allowed to obtain wine for religious purposes, enrollments rose at churches and synagogues, and cities saw a large increase in the number of self-professed rabbis who could obtain wine for their congregations. The law was unclear when it came to Americans making wine at home. With a wink and a nod, the American grape industry began selling kits of juice concentrate with warnings not to leave them sitting too long or else they could ferment and turn into wine. Home stills were technically illegal, but Americans found they could purchase them at many hardware stores, while instructions for distilling could be found in public libraries in pamphlets issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The law that was meant to stop Americans from drinking was instead turning many of them into experts on how to make it. The trade in unregulated alcohol had serious consequences for public health. As the trade in illegal alcohol became more lucrative, the quality of alcohol on the black market declined. On average, 1000 Americans died every year during the Prohibition from the effects of drinking tainted liquor. The Greatest Consequence The effects of Prohibition on law enforcement were also negative. The sums of money being exchanged during the dry era proved a corrupting influence in both the federal Bureau of Prohibition and at the state and local level. Police officers and Prohibition agents alike were frequently tempted by bribes or the lucrative opportunity to go into bootlegging themselves. Many stayed honest, but enough succumbed to the temptation that the stereotype of the corrupt Prohibition agent or local cop undermined public trust in law enforcement for the duration of the era. The growth of the illegal liquor trade under Prohibition made criminals of millions of Americans. As the decade progressed, court rooms and jails overflowed, and the legal system failed to keep up. Many defendants in prohibition cases waited over a year to be brought to trial. As the backlog of cases increased, the judicial system turned to the "plea bargain" to clear hundreds of cases at a time, making a it common practice in American jurisprudence for the first time. The greatest unintended consequence of Prohibition however, was the plainest to see. For over a decade, the law that was meant to foster temperance instead fostered intemperance and excess. The solution the United States had devised to address the problem of alcohol abuse had instead made the problem even worse. The statistics of the period are notoriously unreliable, but it is very clear that in many parts of the United States more people were drinking, and people were drinking more. There is little doubt that Prohibition failed to achieve what it set out to do, and that its unintended consequences were far more far reaching than its few benefits. The ultimate lesson is two-fold. Watch out for solutions that end up worse than the problems they set out to solve, and remember that the Constitution is no place for experiments, noble or otherwise. [1] http://www.pbs.org...

Politics

Alcohol-should-be-prohibited-again/1/

I would first like thank my opponent for creating this debate topic, I look forward to discussing this topic with Pro. That being said, Pro has not established round structure, so I will start with my case. If you look at the title of the debate (the resolution), you will notice that it is not a normative topic, is a positive assertion. Thus, Pro has the full burden of proof to affirm the resolution (since it is a positive assertion, the positive side, Pro, has the BoP). Thus, to win this debate, I only have to negate Pro's case. The title also makes a very specific statement, Aliens exist. Not that they are likely to exist, that aliens could exist, but that they most certainly do exist, without any doubt whatsoever. For them not to exist would be an impossibility. Now that the debate is made clear, you can understand what Pro needs to do to win the debate; prove that aliens do exist with no possibility that they can't, and I merely have to negate that to win. If we look at Pro's arguments, you will see that they do not affirm the resolution. Pro merely shows that there is a great possibility that they could exist, not that get DO exist. Pro needs to give evidence that there is a 100% chance, not 99.999...%

Hayd

I would first like thank my opponent for creating this debate topic, I look forward to discussing this topic with Pro. That being said, Pro has not established round structure, so I will start with my case. If you look at the title of the debate (the resolution), you will notice that it is not a normative topic, is a positive assertion. Thus, Pro has the full burden of proof to affirm the resolution (since it is a positive assertion, the positive side, Pro, has the BoP). Thus, to win this debate, I only have to negate Pro's case. The title also makes a very specific statement, Aliens exist. Not that they are likely to exist, that aliens could exist, but that they most certainly do exist, without any doubt whatsoever. For them not to exist would be an impossibility. Now that the debate is made clear, you can understand what Pro needs to do to win the debate; prove that aliens do exist with no possibility that they can't, and I merely have to negate that to win. If we look at Pro's arguments, you will see that they do not affirm the resolution. Pro merely shows that there is a great possibility that they could exist, not that get DO exist. Pro needs to give evidence that there is a 100% chance, not 99.999...%

Science

Aliens-exist/6/

Hello there. Today I will be arguing that aliens do exist. So, here is some of my proof. First of all the universe is such a large and amazing place. We humans have barely scratched it. We can't necessarily calculate the exact measurements of the universe itself because it's so big. Heck, it's estimated that the diameter of the KNOWN universe is 92 billion light years! ONE light year can travel about 670,616,629 mph just to put things in perspective. Imagine how much space that is, it's so much to calculate. Which means that in that spacious universe, at least ONE other species of lifeforms has to exist. Or else we would be totally lonely... Here are the links I found to support my evidence <URL> <URL>...

Natsu145

Hello there. Today I will be arguing that aliens do exist. So, here is some of my proof. First of all the universe is such a large and amazing place. We humans have barely scratched it. We can't necessarily calculate the exact measurements of the universe itself because it's so big. Heck, it's estimated that the diameter of the KNOWN universe is 92 billion light years! ONE light year can travel about 670,616,629 mph just to put things in perspective. Imagine how much space that is, it's so much to calculate. Which means that in that spacious universe, at least ONE other species of lifeforms has to exist. Or else we would be totally lonely... Here are the links I found to support my evidence www.universetoday.com/38040/speed-of-light-in-mph http://www.space.com...

Science

Aliens-exist/6/

I accept and look forward to a fun debate, thank you for the opportunity!

Martley

I accept and look forward to a fun debate, thank you for the opportunity!

Philosophy

All-Accused-People-Should-Have-the-Right-to-Name-Suppression-Until-They-are-Proven-Guilty./1/

It seems no one will debate on this... I expected more. I hope to see you in round 2. I will be here....

Martley

It seems no one will debate on this... I expected more. I hope to see you in round 2. I will be here....

Philosophy

All-Accused-People-Should-Have-the-Right-to-Name-Suppression-Until-They-are-Proven-Guilty./1/

Well... I will put forth a little more argument for this topic, in addition to what I have already posted in the previous debate and in comments. The freedom of the press to report is well established and I think not a debated issue. The issue is whether the court system should make certain information available to the public. However, I think the position that names and information should withheld from the public deny's the basic legal system that our country is founded upon. Our court system is based on our constitution, but our constitution is fundamentally based upon a free and open legal system established through a long common law tradition. The free and open formate of our courts is the fundamental oversight we have of our legal system. Do we really want a court system that prosecutes persons without public knowledge?? Do we want a legal system that searches for dangerous criminals without the public knowing vital information that may help apprehend these persons, or know that they are loose in our communities?? The fundamental freedom, safety and oversight of our legal system is totally based on free and open information of courts in the public domain.

Martley

Well... I will put forth a little more argument for this topic, in addition to what I have already posted in the previous debate and in comments. The freedom of the press to report is well established and I think not a debated issue. The issue is whether the court system should make certain information available to the public. However, I think the position that names and information should withheld from the public deny's the basic legal system that our country is founded upon. Our court system is based on our constitution, but our constitution is fundamentally based upon a free and open legal system established through a long common law tradition. The free and open formate of our courts is the fundamental oversight we have of our legal system. Do we really want a court system that prosecutes persons without public knowledge?? Do we want a legal system that searches for dangerous criminals without the public knowing vital information that may help apprehend these persons, or know that they are loose in our communities?? The fundamental freedom, safety and oversight of our legal system is totally based on free and open information of courts in the public domain.

Philosophy

All-Accused-People-Should-Have-the-Right-to-Name-Suppression-Until-They-are-Proven-Guilty./1/

"press and public have a First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings.5 First, the Court must consider "whether the place and process have been historically open to the press and general public."6 Second, the Court must consider "whether public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question."7 Since Richmond Newspapers, courts have extended this "history and logic" test to establish a constitutional right of access to criminal and civil court proceedings and records.8 When the First Amendment right of access applies, the Supreme Court has held that a presumption of disclosure requires courts to grant access unless specific, on-the-record findings demonstrate that closure is "necessitated by a compelling governmental interest, and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest." There is well established tradition in common law and the SCOTUS that criminal and civil court cases should and must be open to public. The issue of the press to report this information is covered under the First Amendment. <URL>... <URL>... A judge"s order that the media not publish or broadcast statements by police in a murder trial was an unconstitutional prior restraint. The gag order violated the First Amendment rights of the press and the community. <URL>... A Louisiana law that punished true statements made with "actual malice" was overturned. The Court ruled that unless a newspaper shows "reckless disregard for the truth," it is protected under the First Amendment. <URL>... A state law allowing prior restraint was unconstitutional. This decision also extended protection of press freedom to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. <URL>...

Martley

"press and public have a First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings.5 First, the Court must consider "whether the place and process have been historically open to the press and general public."6 Second, the Court must consider "whether public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question."7 Since Richmond Newspapers, courts have extended this "history and logic" test to establish a constitutional right of access to criminal and civil court proceedings and records.8 When the First Amendment right of access applies, the Supreme Court has held that a presumption of disclosure requires courts to grant access unless specific, on-the-record findings demonstrate that closure is "necessitated by a compelling governmental interest, and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest." There is well established tradition in common law and the SCOTUS that criminal and civil court cases should and must be open to public. The issue of the press to report this information is covered under the First Amendment. http://www.rcfp.org... http://www.casebriefs.com... A judge"s order that the media not publish or broadcast statements by police in a murder trial was an unconstitutional prior restraint. The gag order violated the First Amendment rights of the press and the community. http://www.casebriefs.com... A Louisiana law that punished true statements made with "actual malice" was overturned. The Court ruled that unless a newspaper shows "reckless disregard for the truth," it is protected under the First Amendment. http://supreme.justia.com... A state law allowing prior restraint was unconstitutional. This decision also extended protection of press freedom to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. http://www.casebriefs.com...

Philosophy

All-Accused-People-Should-Have-the-Right-to-Name-Suppression-Until-They-are-Proven-Guilty./1/

I regret that we could not have this debate. I am still looking forward to someone debating me on this topic.

Martley

I regret that we could not have this debate. I am still looking forward to someone debating me on this topic.

Philosophy

All-Accused-People-Should-Have-the-Right-to-Name-Suppression-Until-They-are-Proven-Guilty./1/

I saw this debate elsewhere. (here [1] to be precise). It seems quite interesting, but PRO did not present an argument. (There were several back-to-back forfeits). Perhaps you might wish to actually engage in debate on the topic, Martley? I'm going to define a few terms here, as the resolution is really ambiguous otherwise. Firstly, it should be understood that "name suppression" refers specifically to the suppression of the release of the information of the accused to the public prior to the verdict. Meaning, if X is not found guilty, anyone who is not directly involved should not be aware that X is being charged., or, stated another way, only those who are involved in the trial should be aware of the information of the accused. "Right" in the scope of this debate should be understood as a legal right born of a moral right. The most obvious and easily accessible example I can find to describe this would be the right to Freedom of Speech, Press, and Assembly [2]. We can start from certain axiomatic statements (particularly those of Libertarian Origins*), and arrive at one's moral right to speak as they please, print what they please, and gather with whom they please. It then falls to some group (which government currently) to defend this moral ride by codifying it into law. Thus, we have a legal right, codified in the First Amendment, born of a moral right, born of certain axiomatic principles.** So, our resolution can be summarized as follows: For all X, if X is charged with a crime and found not guilty, X is should not be known to the general public, and there does not exist any person Y such that Y was not either present at the trial or knows someone that was, and knows X was charged. I don't think any symbolization of this is necessary, as there is no syllogism to follow it. If you would like to address this for any reason, please do so in the comments prior to accepting, Martley. It will ensure the debate is focused on the specific topic at hand, and avoid any confusion. I'm not going to structure the debate in any particular way beyond this: 1. Burden of Proof shall be shared, though not necessarily equally. It is up to the audience to decide whether BoP has been reasonably upheld by each participant. 2. If you decide to begin your case in Round 1, i ask that you simply type "No round, as agreed upon". Otherwise, we shall begin arguments in Round 2. 3. Keep this a civil endeavor. 4. If you notice Logical Fallacies, please explain how the use of said fallacy diminishes the strength of the argument. Simply asserting "My opponent is guilty of [insert fallacy here] fallacy." does not constitute an argument, and is to implicitly state "and this makes them incorrect". This is simply committing The Fallacist's Fallacy. [3] *This is not to say the Libertarianism is in anyway true or correct. However, the methodology used is identical to the methodology this debate will be centered on. **This is in reference back to Libertarianism. Three principles are used as axioms, whether justified by derivation or simply assumed, to arrive at certain conclusions, in this example, the conclusion is that we have he right to speak as we please, provided we are not infringing on the rights of others. [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>...

Pfalcon1318

I saw this debate elsewhere. (here [1] to be precise). It seems quite interesting, but PRO did not present an argument. (There were several back-to-back forfeits). Perhaps you might wish to actually engage in debate on the topic, Martley? I'm going to define a few terms here, as the resolution is really ambiguous otherwise. Firstly, it should be understood that "name suppression" refers specifically to the suppression of the release of the information of the accused to the public prior to the verdict. Meaning, if X is not found guilty, anyone who is not directly involved should not be aware that X is being charged., or, stated another way, only those who are involved in the trial should be aware of the information of the accused. "Right" in the scope of this debate should be understood as a legal right born of a moral right. The most obvious and easily accessible example I can find to describe this would be the right to Freedom of Speech, Press, and Assembly [2]. We can start from certain axiomatic statements (particularly those of Libertarian Origins*), and arrive at one's moral right to speak as they please, print what they please, and gather with whom they please. It then falls to some group (which government currently) to defend this moral ride by codifying it into law. Thus, we have a legal right, codified in the First Amendment, born of a moral right, born of certain axiomatic principles.** So, our resolution can be summarized as follows: For all X, if X is charged with a crime and found not guilty, X is should not be known to the general public, and there does not exist any person Y such that Y was not either present at the trial or knows someone that was, and knows X was charged. I don't think any symbolization of this is necessary, as there is no syllogism to follow it. If you would like to address this for any reason, please do so in the comments prior to accepting, Martley. It will ensure the debate is focused on the specific topic at hand, and avoid any confusion. I'm not going to structure the debate in any particular way beyond this: 1. Burden of Proof shall be shared, though not necessarily equally. It is up to the audience to decide whether BoP has been reasonably upheld by each participant. 2. If you decide to begin your case in Round 1, i ask that you simply type "No round, as agreed upon". Otherwise, we shall begin arguments in Round 2. 3. Keep this a civil endeavor. 4. If you notice Logical Fallacies, please explain how the use of said fallacy diminishes the strength of the argument. Simply asserting "My opponent is guilty of [insert fallacy here] fallacy." does not constitute an argument, and is to implicitly state "and this makes them incorrect". This is simply committing The Fallacist's Fallacy. [3] *This is not to say the Libertarianism is in anyway true or correct. However, the methodology used is identical to the methodology this debate will be centered on. **This is in reference back to Libertarianism. Three principles are used as axioms, whether justified by derivation or simply assumed, to arrive at certain conclusions, in this example, the conclusion is that we have he right to speak as we please, provided we are not infringing on the rights of others. [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://www.usconstitution.net... [3] http://www.logicalfallacies.info...

Philosophy

All-Accused-People-Should-Have-the-Right-to-Name-Suppression-Until-They-are-Proven-Guilty./1/

I accept and will argue that all european countries should NOT join the European Union and adopt the Euro. You may state your case

imabench

I accept and will argue that all european countries should NOT join the European Union and adopt the Euro. You may state your case

Politics

All-European-Countries-should-join-the-European-Union-and-adopt-the-Euro/1/

Crap....

imabench

Crap....

Politics

All-European-Countries-should-join-the-European-Union-and-adopt-the-Euro/1/

well sh*t....

imabench

well sh*t....

Politics

All-European-Countries-should-join-the-European-Union-and-adopt-the-Euro/1/

I personally believe that the European Union has done great things for Europe and has allowed for major growth and economic stability. I believe if all countries of Europe were united in the union then we could strive for an economically stable and safe Europe.

thelonley

I personally believe that the European Union has done great things for Europe and has allowed for major growth and economic stability. I believe if all countries of Europe were united in the union then we could strive for an economically stable and safe Europe.

Politics

All-European-Countries-should-join-the-European-Union-and-adopt-the-Euro/1/

I'll accept this debate. Good luck. The resolution says "all" All = The greatest possible, the whole of, everything/ everybody So, it does not place limits on what, when, or where. C1: Greece Ancient Greece: Was a direct democratic government. Criminal = 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. The definition shows that "criminal" is defined by the state. In Ancient Greece, the people literally choose the law themselves. That government organization of citizens couldn't be a criminal organization, because they decided in their self interest and for the best interest of the nation as most citizens would do. They did not act to harm their nation (not criminal then). Thus, this gov't was not a criminal organization. <URL>... <URL>...

Contra

I'll accept this debate. Good luck. The resolution says "all" All = The greatest possible, the whole of, everything/ everybody So, it does not place limits on what, when, or where. C1: Greece Ancient Greece: Was a direct democratic government. Criminal = 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. The definition shows that "criminal" is defined by the state. In Ancient Greece, the people literally choose the law themselves. That government organization of citizens couldn't be a criminal organization, because they decided in their self interest and for the best interest of the nation as most citizens would do. They did not act to harm their nation (not criminal then). Thus, this gov't was not a criminal organization. http://dictionary.reference.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...

Politics

All-Governments-are-Criminal-Organizations/1/

To win this debate, I need to prove that at least 1 government is not a criminal organization, because "ALL" means "everybody" or "everything" - all inclusive. All Gov'ts have the potential to be criminal of course. This however doesn't make them criminal. I have committed no crimes, but I could trespass somewhere. Yet, I am not a criminal. I said Ancient Greece. A better example of a Government that is not a Criminal Organization: C1: The Principality of Sealand It has a population of: 4 people <URL>... Now, criminal means that it is against the general welfare. In Sealand, 4 people (one family) rule. In 1968, Britain ruled that Sealand was a separate area that Britain cannot rule over. Sealand has not broken any UN laws or any of its own laws. Since nobody has charged Sealand's gov't, it cannot be regarded as a criminal organization (see my explanation at the beginning of this round). Therefore, I have my BoP, not you. Vote CONtra (short debate)

Contra

To win this debate, I need to prove that at least 1 government is not a criminal organization, because "ALL" means "everybody" or "everything" - all inclusive. All Gov'ts have the potential to be criminal of course. This however doesn't make them criminal. I have committed no crimes, but I could trespass somewhere. Yet, I am not a criminal. I said Ancient Greece. A better example of a Government that is not a Criminal Organization: C1: The Principality of Sealand It has a population of: 4 people http://en.wikipedia.org... Now, criminal means that it is against the general welfare. In Sealand, 4 people (one family) rule. In 1968, Britain ruled that Sealand was a separate area that Britain cannot rule over. Sealand has not broken any UN laws or any of its own laws. Since nobody has charged Sealand's gov't, it cannot be regarded as a criminal organization (see my explanation at the beginning of this round). Therefore, I have my BoP, not you. Vote CONtra (short debate)

Politics

All-Governments-are-Criminal-Organizations/1/

When I am using the word "government", I am describing any number of institutions, with variations in size, scope, complexity, culture, laws, and location. However, I assert that all of these institutions have very specific characteristics in common, which I will sum up into three behavioral attributes: 1) The creation of Laws and Law enforcement. 2) The claim of monopoly rights over a geographic area. 3) The collection of taxes. While there are many variations of structure and organization of such institutions, I will use these attributes to define government. Something labeled a "government" may not meet this criteria, and is therefor exempt from this . I define "Criminal Organization" as any organization which inherently commits crimes. Here, "crime" means a violation of applicable criminal law (if applied consistently to all moral actors regardless of arbitrary exemptions giving members of that organization the exclusive right to commit such crime).

socratesone

When I am using the word "government", I am describing any number of institutions, with variations in size, scope, complexity, culture, laws, and location. However, I assert that all of these institutions have very specific characteristics in common, which I will sum up into three behavioral attributes: 1) The creation of Laws and Law enforcement. 2) The claim of monopoly rights over a geographic area. 3) The collection of taxes. While there are many variations of structure and organization of such institutions, I will use these attributes to define government. Something labeled a "government" may not meet this criteria, and is therefor exempt from this . I define "Criminal Organization" as any organization which inherently commits crimes. Here, "crime" means a violation of applicable criminal law (if applied consistently to all moral actors regardless of arbitrary exemptions giving members of that organization the exclusive right to commit such crime).

Politics

All-Governments-are-Criminal-Organizations/1/

That definition includes an "arbitrary exemption" as explicitly excluded from the definitions I assumed you had accepted when you accepted this debate. If we don't accept that a state even has the potential to be a criminal institution, simply by fiat, we are in fact accepting that all states are legitimate, regardless of any criminal behavior, including the violation of the "applicable criminal laws" of other states, including states claiming overlapping geographic regions (ie, Int. or Federal Law). Not all people in Rome were "the state", or had a vote, or even property rights - many were slaves, and your assertion that "the people choose the law themselves" ignores this inequality. Even if we accept this definition, we are still left with the fact that many actions of the Roman state were in fact instances of criminal negligence that were demonstrably injurious to the public welfare, leading finally to the catastrophic collapse of the civilization and the deaths of thousands

socratesone

That definition includes an "arbitrary exemption" as explicitly excluded from the definitions I assumed you had accepted when you accepted this debate. If we don't accept that a state even has the potential to be a criminal institution, simply by fiat, we are in fact accepting that all states are legitimate, regardless of any criminal behavior, including the violation of the "applicable criminal laws" of other states, including states claiming overlapping geographic regions (ie, Int. or Federal Law). Not all people in Rome were "the state", or had a vote, or even property rights - many were slaves, and your assertion that "the people choose the law themselves" ignores this inequality. Even if we accept this definition, we are still left with the fact that many actions of the Roman state were in fact instances of criminal negligence that were demonstrably injurious to the public welfare, leading finally to the catastrophic collapse of the civilization and the deaths of thousands

Politics

All-Governments-are-Criminal-Organizations/1/

First round is for acceptance only!

jkyrocks123

First round is for acceptance only!

Economics

All-Illegal-immigrants-within-the-United-States-of-America-should-get-deported/1/

Ok, so I would like to start saying that i believe that illegal immigrants that are on US soil need to be deported. They aren't called illegal immigrants for no reason. They broke a law and they need to be punished for it, and that punishment is being deported. These illegal immigrants that are hopping the border are also getting financial aid from the government, which is coming out of legal US citizens paycheck. Its not hard to come over the boarder legally and if you cant come over legally then obviously you shouldn't even be over in the first place.

jkyrocks123

Ok, so I would like to start saying that i believe that illegal immigrants that are on US soil need to be deported. They aren't called illegal immigrants for no reason. They broke a law and they need to be punished for it, and that punishment is being deported. These illegal immigrants that are hopping the border are also getting financial aid from the government, which is coming out of legal US citizens paycheck. Its not hard to come over the boarder legally and if you cant come over legally then obviously you shouldn't even be over in the first place.

Economics

All-Illegal-immigrants-within-the-United-States-of-America-should-get-deported/1/

Welfare: So I would like to start off with showing how much us legal citizens are paying all together to give these illegal immigrants welfare. When these illegal immigrants are coming into the US, they are either homeless or are given a home through welfare. So us Americans all together (through taxes) are paying 235 billion dollars to keep welfare up and running to help these illegal immigrants to live in the US. Here is a chart to prove it. Figure 1: <URL>... I would also like to show how a large majority of people enrolled in welfare, medical, etc are illegal immigrants. Figure 2: <URL>... In figure 2 we see that there are far more illegal immigrants enrolled in welfare than natives (US Citizens). So yes there are some illegal immigrants that are doing good in the US and paying taxes like a normal citizens. However we see that we spend more money through welfare alone to keep these illegal immigrants in the US. So when you get your paycheck that you worked so hard for and you see the tax deduction chances are that money went towards paying for some illegal immigrant's housing, food, phone, etc. So if we were to deport these illegal immigrants there would be less people enrolled in welfare, medical, etc so then you tax rate would decrease due to there being a lesser amount of people enrolled in welfare. Jobs: Disney right now is facing a lawsuit because around 250 US citizen tech workers were laid off and replaced with Illegal Immigrants and here is the article to prove it. <URL>... I would also like to compare the amount of jobs that are taken away for US citizens to be replaced by illegal immigrants <URL>... In this article we see that 1,887,695 jobs are taken in California and in Texas 1,296,670 jobs are taken. So these illegal immigrants are getting their jobs because they are taking them from natives (US Citizens). Deportation: My final point will be the cost of deportation in the article that I cited below we see that the total cost for deportation of ALL illegal immigrants is 285 billion dollars. It may seem like a big number, however if we instead of using our money to keep the illegal immigrants in the US (welfare, medical etc), used the money to get them out, it would easily fund all the costs of deportation. <URL>... Sources: 1. <URL>... 2. <URL>... 3. <URL>... 4. <URL>...

jkyrocks123

Welfare: So I would like to start off with showing how much us legal citizens are paying all together to give these illegal immigrants welfare. When these illegal immigrants are coming into the US, they are either homeless or are given a home through welfare. So us Americans all together (through taxes) are paying 235 billion dollars to keep welfare up and running to help these illegal immigrants to live in the US. Here is a chart to prove it. Figure 1: http://www.motherjones.com... I would also like to show how a large majority of people enrolled in welfare, medical, etc are illegal immigrants. Figure 2: http://cis.org... In figure 2 we see that there are far more illegal immigrants enrolled in welfare than natives (US Citizens). So yes there are some illegal immigrants that are doing good in the US and paying taxes like a normal citizens. However we see that we spend more money through welfare alone to keep these illegal immigrants in the US. So when you get your paycheck that you worked so hard for and you see the tax deduction chances are that money went towards paying for some illegal immigrant's housing, food, phone, etc. So if we were to deport these illegal immigrants there would be less people enrolled in welfare, medical, etc so then you tax rate would decrease due to there being a lesser amount of people enrolled in welfare. Jobs: Disney right now is facing a lawsuit because around 250 US citizen tech workers were laid off and replaced with Illegal Immigrants and here is the article to prove it. http://www.nytimes.com... I would also like to compare the amount of jobs that are taken away for US citizens to be replaced by illegal immigrants http://www.fairus.org... In this article we see that 1,887,695 jobs are taken in California and in Texas 1,296,670 jobs are taken. So these illegal immigrants are getting their jobs because they are taking them from natives (US Citizens). Deportation: My final point will be the cost of deportation in the article that I cited below we see that the total cost for deportation of ALL illegal immigrants is 285 billion dollars. It may seem like a big number, however if we instead of using our money to keep the illegal immigrants in the US (welfare, medical etc), used the money to get them out, it would easily fund all the costs of deportation. https://cdn.americanprogress.org... Sources: 1. http://cis.org... 2. http://www.nytimes.com... 3. http://www.fairus.org... 4. https://cdn.americanprogress.org...

Economics

All-Illegal-immigrants-within-the-United-States-of-America-should-get-deported/1/

First off I want to say this already, and were only half way through is going to be a pretty pumped up debate. I like it! Welfare: The first graph i showed was to get an Idea of how much goes into welfare in general. I wasn't yet focused on illegal immigrants will the second graph which showed how many illegal immigrants were enrolled. Also in my second graph I was not focused on housing, I was focused on welfare and medical the main things that are paid for my the government. Jobs: My point I was making about Illegal immigrants taking our jobs is the illegal immigrants are coming into the US then the government tries to get them a job. However with so little jobs yet so many people (US citizens and Illegal Immigrants combined) it makes it harder for us natives to get jobs and were also getting laid off from our current jobs to be replaced by these illegal immigrants. About 8.5 million jobs are encumbered by illegal immigrant workers[1]. So deporting these illegal immigrant will make sure there are jobs for US citizens. Deportation: Can you please show all the expenses going into deportation? In my claim I showed all the expenses, ill even show them again. <URL>... Sources: 1. <URL>...

jkyrocks123

First off I want to say this already, and were only half way through is going to be a pretty pumped up debate. I like it! Welfare: The first graph i showed was to get an Idea of how much goes into welfare in general. I wasn't yet focused on illegal immigrants will the second graph which showed how many illegal immigrants were enrolled. Also in my second graph I was not focused on housing, I was focused on welfare and medical the main things that are paid for my the government. Jobs: My point I was making about Illegal immigrants taking our jobs is the illegal immigrants are coming into the US then the government tries to get them a job. However with so little jobs yet so many people (US citizens and Illegal Immigrants combined) it makes it harder for us natives to get jobs and were also getting laid off from our current jobs to be replaced by these illegal immigrants. About 8.5 million jobs are encumbered by illegal immigrant workers[1]. So deporting these illegal immigrant will make sure there are jobs for US citizens. Deportation: Can you please show all the expenses going into deportation? In my claim I showed all the expenses, ill even show them again. https://cdn.americanprogress.org... Sources: 1. http://www.fairus.org...

Economics

All-Illegal-immigrants-within-the-United-States-of-America-should-get-deported/1/

I accept. Since no rules were set in round 1, I will make the assumption I can begin my arguments. "All buses should have seat belts" I disagree that all busses should have seat belts. I agree that some busses, those that are smaller in size, should require seatbelts for passengers. Not standard sized or larger school busses This topic has been debated by public officials and they have concluded that large busses offer enough protection to shield the passengers inside from harm. The National Highway Transportation Administration says, "School bus transportation is one of the safest forms of transportation in the United States." School busses that currently do not have seat belts. "Overall, travel on school bus is the safest way to travel - 40 times safer than riding in a car - with only a handful of deaths occurring to passengers on school buses every year."- <URL>... Additionally, 1) seatbelts can and will be used as a weapon by immature children to injure other students 2) it would be impossible to ensure a bus-full of children do not undo their seatbealts 3) seat belts may trap the child in their seat in the case of an emergency : fire, flooding, etc,. <URL>... In addition to the debunked safety issue , there is the issue of cost and room : In conclusion: Some busses, the smaller, shorter ones, but not the standard size or large sized busses should not require seatbealts. "It is estimated that adding seatbelts to buses would a dd between $8,000 and 15,000 to the cost of each bus . In addition, seatbelts would take up room currently used as seats, meaning that each bus would have fewer seating places. The additional room in the bus taken up by seatbelts would mean that bus fleets would have to increase by as much as 15% just to carry the same number of people ." <URL>... In conclusion: Some busses , the smaller, shorter ones, but not the standard size or large sized busses should require seatbealts. Adding seatbelts to already safe transportation but adding factors of: 1) new costs 2) decreased seat space, 3) kids using the seatbelts as weapons, 4) trapping kids in their seat during emergenciesand given that 5) it is impossible to ensure each child will remain buckled in his or her seat 6) large and standard sized school busses are already one of the safest forms of transportation without seat belts

Benshapiro

I accept. Since no rules were set in round 1, I will make the assumption I can begin my arguments. "All buses should have seat belts" I disagree that all busses should have seat belts. I agree that some busses, those that are smaller in size, should require seatbelts for passengers. Not standard sized or larger school busses This topic has been debated by public officials and they have concluded that large busses offer enough protection to shield the passengers inside from harm. The National Highway Transportation Administration says, "School bus transportation is one of the safest forms of transportation in the United States." School busses that currently do not have seat belts. "Overall, travel on school bus is the safest way to travel - 40 times safer than riding in a car - with only a handful of deaths occurring to passengers on school buses every year."- http://publictransport.about.com... Additionally, 1) seatbelts can and will be used as a weapon by immature children to injure other students 2) it would be impossible to ensure a bus-full of children do not undo their seatbealts 3) seat belts may trap the child in their seat in the case of an emergency : fire, flooding, etc,. http://www.nea.org... In addition to the debunked safety issue , there is the issue of cost and room : In conclusion: Some busses, the smaller, shorter ones, but not the standard size or large sized busses should not require seatbealts. "It is estimated that adding seatbelts to buses would a dd between $8,000 and 15,000 to the cost of each bus . In addition, seatbelts would take up room currently used as seats, meaning that each bus would have fewer seating places. The additional room in the bus taken up by seatbelts would mean that bus fleets would have to increase by as much as 15% just to carry the same number of people ." http://publictransport.about.com... In conclusion: Some busses , the smaller, shorter ones, but not the standard size or large sized busses should require seatbealts. Adding seatbelts to already safe transportation but adding factors of: 1) new costs 2) decreased seat space, 3) kids using the seatbelts as weapons, 4) trapping kids in their seat during emergenciesand given that 5) it is impossible to ensure each child will remain buckled in his or her seat 6) large and standard sized school busses are already one of the safest forms of transportation without seat belts

Technology

All-buses-should-have-seat-belts/1/

All buses should have seat belts because it would make buses a lot safer especially for kids. I know that a lot of countries don't have seat belts in buses and I think that, that is absolutely horrendous because if there was a crash more people would get hurt without seat belts. But if there was seat belts then there wouldn't be so many deaths. Thanks, SH11636

sh11636

All buses should have seat belts because it would make buses a lot safer especially for kids. I know that a lot of countries don't have seat belts in buses and I think that, that is absolutely horrendous because if there was a crash more people would get hurt without seat belts. But if there was seat belts then there wouldn't be so many deaths. Thanks, SH11636

Technology

All-buses-should-have-seat-belts/1/

Specifically, you required that all children in the United States be taught other language aside from English at home or at school. Honestly, I admire your proposal but that is so impractical and unlikely to happen. *With the expansion and globalization of modern society, learning to communicate with others is crucial, especially in a diverse country like the United States. Nobody is contending the importance of communication to globalization, but you have forgotten that English is the standard language of the world, hence, knowing that language is enough to be able to communicate around the world, without having the hassle to understand difficult languages. *I feel that the current method of language learning courses in high schools is not enough and students should be immersed into more methods of language learning, especially early in childhood development so that by the end of high school, students would either be fluent, or at least at an intermediate level of fluency in a second language (or third if they already speak a foreign language at home) With due respect to you Sir, your own feeling with the insufficiency of language learning does not mean that you're right, because you're obliged to give solid evidence that you are correct. You did not provide any evidence with your statement above, but you just listened to your gut feeling without any support. *If necessary, parents should also encourage their child to learn more languages at home as well. How can you possibly implement your proposal? You said you would require language learning at home, but how can this even be possible? Lastly, you have to provide evidence first so that I can refute that with another evidence, because anyway, the status quo is working then why fix it?

Juris

Specifically, you required that all children in the United States be taught other language aside from English at home or at school. Honestly, I admire your proposal but that is so impractical and unlikely to happen. *With the expansion and globalization of modern society, learning to communicate with others is crucial, especially in a diverse country like the United States. Nobody is contending the importance of communication to globalization, but you have forgotten that English is the standard language of the world, hence, knowing that language is enough to be able to communicate around the world, without having the hassle to understand difficult languages. *I feel that the current method of language learning courses in high schools is not enough and students should be immersed into more methods of language learning, especially early in childhood development so that by the end of high school, students would either be fluent, or at least at an intermediate level of fluency in a second language (or third if they already speak a foreign language at home) With due respect to you Sir, your own feeling with the insufficiency of language learning does not mean that you’re right, because you’re obliged to give solid evidence that you are correct. You did not provide any evidence with your statement above, but you just listened to your gut feeling without any support. *If necessary, parents should also encourage their child to learn more languages at home as well. How can you possibly implement your proposal? You said you would require language learning at home, but how can this even be possible? Lastly, you have to provide evidence first so that I can refute that with another evidence, because anyway, the status quo is working then why fix it?

Society

All-children-should-be-required-to-learn-a-second-or-third-language-at-home-or-in-schools/1/

Of course sir, we are not going to enforce that. But for your information, you should be aware of the practicability case of the debate. You should not only focus on the necessity and benefits, but also the practicability. For example, there is a proposal that all men should be required to go to outer space because it would enhance their understanding about the universe. Yes this proposal sounds good, but does it sound practical? NO! Just like your proposal, it has good intentions but not so possible. I am not saying that learning other languages is not important, but what I'm saying is that requiring ALL CHILDREN to learn another language is not so possible. Let them learn it by themselves if they want, without requiring it at home or at school. Your stated, " Only speaking English in a global society will only get you so far, especially if you want to work or travel internationally. Learning more than one language is important and clearly beneficial. " However, it is impossible for me or anyone to contend that learning other language is not beneficial, but I can only contend that practicability of your proposal. Your proposal is not very possible.

Juris

Of course sir, we are not going to enforce that. But for your information, you should be aware of the practicability case of the debate. You should not only focus on the necessity and benefits, but also the practicability. For example, there is a proposal that all men should be required to go to outer space because it would enhance their understanding about the universe. Yes this proposal sounds good, but does it sound practical? NO! Just like your proposal, it has good intentions but not so possible. I am not saying that learning other languages is not important, but what I’m saying is that requiring ALL CHILDREN to learn another language is not so possible. Let them learn it by themselves if they want, without requiring it at home or at school. Your stated, “ Only speaking English in a global society will only get you so far, especially if you want to work or travel internationally. Learning more than one language is important and clearly beneficial. ” However, it is impossible for me or anyone to contend that learning other language is not beneficial, but I can only contend that practicability of your proposal. Your proposal is not very possible.

Society

All-children-should-be-required-to-learn-a-second-or-third-language-at-home-or-in-schools/1/

You stated, "Let me initiate my rebuttal by stating that the practicability of my proposal is very much possible. I just don't expect it to be reinforced, at least not as of now, but that doesn't mean it cannot and will not happen." Obviously, with your statement you do not understand what practicability means. It means that a debate proposal should be possible or enforceable in real world. You're very ambivalent with what you are saying that your proposal is possible but cannot be enforced. We are having policy debate here so you should assume that your proposal must be enforceable, well that should clear because it's basic debating. Also you said, " Your comparison of encouraging bilingual education and going to outer space is a very inaccurate one." I am not comparing the two, but I was just trying to point out that you're understanding of the practicability of the proposal is weak. Learning other language is very important and no one is contending that it is not, but you're medium on how children should learn other language is very impractical, and this is what I am attacking. First, you want to be require the school and the family to teach all children another language. This is unlikely to happen. You use the word "require" which means that your proposal must be enforced and supervised, but how can it be possible? Is it possible? These are questions which you failed to discuss in this debate. All you did was to discuss the benefit of learning other language which I am not even contending. Second, you are saying that your proposal is not meant to be enforced. But this is policy debate, you have to assume that it must be enforceable even if it is not. This is the meaning of practicability which you disregarded.

Juris

You stated, “Let me initiate my rebuttal by stating that the practicability of my proposal is very much possible. I just don't expect it to be reinforced, at least not as of now, but that doesn't mean it cannot and will not happen.” Obviously, with your statement you do not understand what practicability means. It means that a debate proposal should be possible or enforceable in real world. You’re very ambivalent with what you are saying that your proposal is possible but cannot be enforced. We are having policy debate here so you should assume that your proposal must be enforceable, well that should clear because it’s basic debating. Also you said, “ Your comparison of encouraging bilingual education and going to outer space is a very inaccurate one.” I am not comparing the two, but I was just trying to point out that you’re understanding of the practicability of the proposal is weak. Learning other language is very important and no one is contending that it is not, but you’re medium on how children should learn other language is very impractical, and this is what I am attacking. First, you want to be require the school and the family to teach all children another language. This is unlikely to happen. You use the word “require” which means that your proposal must be enforced and supervised, but how can it be possible? Is it possible? These are questions which you failed to discuss in this debate. All you did was to discuss the benefit of learning other language which I am not even contending. Second, you are saying that your proposal is not meant to be enforced. But this is policy debate, you have to assume that it must be enforceable even if it is not. This is the meaning of practicability which you disregarded.

Society

All-children-should-be-required-to-learn-a-second-or-third-language-at-home-or-in-schools/1/

When you say that you do not expect your proposal to be enforced means that you don't really understand policy debate. Your statement contradicts your understanding of what practicability means. Flaws of your proposal: 1. You failed to define what "require" means. 2. You should have explained the steps or mechanism on how your proposal is possible, not simply focusing on the benefits of learning new language, because no one in this planet will say that it is harmful. Regarding this, you should focus more on the practicability not on the advantages. 3. You assume that because other institutions in the United States teach other language that it is already feasible to the entire educational institutions throughout the country, and worst that you even require all students. I don't think that's possible to apply to the entire country. 4. You cited countries like Philippines where people can speak many languages- English, Spanish, and Filipino. But the Philippines does not have a policy requiring schools and parents to teach all students other language. It just happened that they are able to speak English because it is the lingua franca of the world. Also, they can speak Spanish because the Philippines was colonized by Spain for over 333 years. So your comparison with those people in other countries that they can speak many languages is just immaterial. 5. You did not even clarify what language should be taught to students. This is where everything will fail because you cannot just any language you think is popular because that would create bias against other languages. Yeah! But the word "require" demand supervision of a the proposal. By just giving them tools or materials so that they can learn at home destroys the idea of having it required. In reality, you cannot really require students learn hence you will not know what they will be doing at home because of lack of monitoring from teachers or even parents. Wow! You even presented videos of the benefit of teaching new language to students. Your Proposal is not possible because you're requiring schools and parents to teach all students other language. You used words, "require" and "all students" in this debate, thus you should present how can this be possible. All you just did was to specify some schools that are already teaching other language, but it does not mean that it is applicable to all students in the United states. Your example is just no representative enough. You offered a weak example to pursue your claim. I will repeat this again: "No body is contending that learning new language is harmful, what I am criticizing is the practicability of your proposal." I would rather encourage students to learn new language on their own, without requiring the schools and parents to do it because it just so hassle and impossible. With this, you failed to properly follow the parameters of this debate. You completely fail to understand the terms of this debate

Juris

When you say that you do not expect your proposal to be enforced means that you don’t really understand policy debate. Your statement contradicts your understanding of what practicability means. Flaws of your proposal: 1. You failed to define what “require” means. 2. You should have explained the steps or mechanism on how your proposal is possible, not simply focusing on the benefits of learning new language, because no one in this planet will say that it is harmful. Regarding this, you should focus more on the practicability not on the advantages. 3. You assume that because other institutions in the United States teach other language that it is already feasible to the entire educational institutions throughout the country, and worst that you even require all students. I don’t think that’s possible to apply to the entire country. 4. You cited countries like Philippines where people can speak many languages- English, Spanish, and Filipino. But the Philippines does not have a policy requiring schools and parents to teach all students other language. It just happened that they are able to speak English because it is the lingua franca of the world. Also, they can speak Spanish because the Philippines was colonized by Spain for over 333 years. So your comparison with those people in other countries that they can speak many languages is just immaterial. 5. You did not even clarify what language should be taught to students. This is where everything will fail because you cannot just any language you think is popular because that would create bias against other languages. Yeah! But the word “require” demand supervision of a the proposal. By just giving them tools or materials so that they can learn at home destroys the idea of having it required. In reality, you cannot really require students learn hence you will not know what they will be doing at home because of lack of monitoring from teachers or even parents. Wow! You even presented videos of the benefit of teaching new language to students. Your Proposal is not possible because you’re requiring schools and parents to teach all students other language. You used words, “require” and “all students” in this debate, thus you should present how can this be possible. All you just did was to specify some schools that are already teaching other language, but it does not mean that it is applicable to all students in the United states. Your example is just no representative enough. You offered a weak example to pursue your claim. I will repeat this again: “No body is contending that learning new language is harmful, what I am criticizing is the practicability of your proposal.” I would rather encourage students to learn new language on their own, without requiring the schools and parents to do it because it just so hassle and impossible. With this, you failed to properly follow the parameters of this debate. You completely fail to understand the terms of this debate

Society

All-children-should-be-required-to-learn-a-second-or-third-language-at-home-or-in-schools/1/

Good for you that you know what "require" means. But you keep on offering contradictory statements, like you said, "my proposal is not meant to be enforced." Clearly you do not understand policy debate. No one is contending with the benefits of your proposal, the focus is on the practicability. It's clear that you want ALL STUDENTS in the US be required to learn another language(you were not even clear what language is that and why that language), imagine that! All students? Worst, you want to oblige parents to do the same. Your proposal seems to be impossible to be applied to all students. My job is not to discredit learning another language, because nobody can say that it is not good, but to attack your proposal at its core- practicability. "From a global perspective Spanish, French, Portuguese, Arabic and Chinese are the most important spoken languages in the world for children to learn other than English." More specifically Spanish and French since those are the most important commonly spoken languages in the Americas besides English. And because of their similarities to the English language, those are the easiest languages to learn for native English speakers. For example, Why would a child learn Latin if it's of no use and rarely spoken? Whereas Spanish is spoken by over 400 million people. This isn't bias, it's just practical. --->That's bias. On the other hand English is spoken by almost all people in the world. Reasons you failed: 1. You're very inconsistent with your arguments as first you said that your proposal is not meant to be enforced but you said that you're aware what "require" means. This is a policy debate, you're very contradictory. 2. Nobody argues that learning other language is harmful, what is being contested is your idealistic proposal of requiring all students to be taught another language(you said Spanish). That's so expensive and such a hassle. 3. You want Spanish to be taught simply because you said that it is spoken by almost 400 million people. But it is very insignificant to American students. 4. You are mistaken when you said that other countries are doing your proposal of requiring all students to learn other language. No! They are not requiring all students. Only few institutions do that, because it is unreasonable to require all students to learn a difficult thing without so much use to them. 5. I am here to criticize your proposal not give evidence against learning another language as there is no disadvantage of learning it aside from the difficulty. 6. Not because other institutions are teaching other language in the US that is already feasible to the entire schools in the US. 7. Your proposal failed to stand on the practicability!

Juris

Good for you that you know what “require” means. But you keep on offering contradictory statements, like you said, “my proposal is not meant to be enforced.” Clearly you do not understand policy debate. No one is contending with the benefits of your proposal, the focus is on the practicability. It’s clear that you want ALL STUDENTS in the US be required to learn another language(you were not even clear what language is that and why that language), imagine that! All students? Worst, you want to oblige parents to do the same. Your proposal seems to be impossible to be applied to all students. My job is not to discredit learning another language, because nobody can say that it is not good, but to attack your proposal at its core- practicability. "From a global perspective Spanish, French, Portuguese, Arabic and Chinese are the most important spoken languages in the world for children to learn other than English." More specifically Spanish and French since those are the most important commonly spoken languages in the Americas besides English. And because of their similarities to the English language, those are the easiest languages to learn for native English speakers. For example, Why would a child learn Latin if it's of no use and rarely spoken? Whereas Spanish is spoken by over 400 million people. This isn't bias, it's just practical. --->That’s bias. On the other hand English is spoken by almost all people in the world. Reasons you failed: 1. You’re very inconsistent with your arguments as first you said that your proposal is not meant to be enforced but you said that you’re aware what “require” means. This is a policy debate, you’re very contradictory. 2. Nobody argues that learning other language is harmful, what is being contested is your idealistic proposal of requiring all students to be taught another language(you said Spanish). That’s so expensive and such a hassle. 3. You want Spanish to be taught simply because you said that it is spoken by almost 400 million people. But it is very insignificant to American students. 4. You are mistaken when you said that other countries are doing your proposal of requiring all students to learn other language. No! They are not requiring all students. Only few institutions do that, because it is unreasonable to require all students to learn a difficult thing without so much use to them. 5. I am here to criticize your proposal not give evidence against learning another language as there is no disadvantage of learning it aside from the difficulty. 6. Not because other institutions are teaching other language in the US that is already feasible to the entire schools in the US. 7. Your proposal failed to stand on the practicability!

Society

All-children-should-be-required-to-learn-a-second-or-third-language-at-home-or-in-schools/1/

This is just a different take on the minimum wage issue. This isn't about raising or lowering it, although this resolution could have that effect. Since this isn't about whether minimum wage is good or bad, I'll ask that my opponent not run a critique, saying that minimum wage shouldn't be used at all. That is not the point of this debate. The central idea of the PRO is that government officials are the ones who determine what the minimum wage is. The minimum wage is supposed to be the minimum amount of money that one can live off of. In that line of think, if these people are the ones who say that this is enough to live off of, then they should live off of it. I'd also like to point out that for the purposes of this debate, we are not talking about government employees that are hired. We are only referring to elected and appointed officials. I will wait to see what points the CON brings up against this before actually building more of a case. Good luck to whomever decides to accept this challenge.

Geekis_Khan

This is just a different take on the minimum wage issue. This isn't about raising or lowering it, although this resolution could have that effect. Since this isn't about whether minimum wage is good or bad, I'll ask that my opponent not run a critique, saying that minimum wage shouldn't be used at all. That is not the point of this debate. The central idea of the PRO is that government officials are the ones who determine what the minimum wage is. The minimum wage is supposed to be the minimum amount of money that one can live off of. In that line of think, if these people are the ones who say that this is enough to live off of, then they should live off of it. I'd also like to point out that for the purposes of this debate, we are not talking about government employees that are hired. We are only referring to elected and appointed officials. I will wait to see what points the CON brings up against this before actually building more of a case. Good luck to whomever decides to accept this challenge.

Politics

All-elected-and-appointed-government-officials-should-be-paid-minimum-wage./1/

Well, he forfeited, so I'll just give a few erasons to vote PRO, and hope he replies next round. First, I extend the idea that people who say that minimum wage is enopugh to live off of should live off of it. Now I'll address onne of the problems commonly associated with raising minimum wage and show why it doesn't apply: inflation. The problem is that when we raise wages, prices go up, so they cancel each other out. But when we follow this resolution, we are giving our representatives a direct incentive to find a balance. They'll want to have wages that aren't negated by inflation. Therefore, it will continued to be altered until a a balanced has been achieved. They'll want to achieve a balance because it is directly affecting them. This will ultimately have a huge positive effect on those living off of minimum wage. The transition period might be tough, but ultimately, it will get better.

Geekis_Khan

Well, he forfeited, so I'll just give a few erasons to vote PRO, and hope he replies next round. First, I extend the idea that people who say that minimum wage is enopugh to live off of should live off of it. Now I'll address onne of the problems commonly associated with raising minimum wage and show why it doesn't apply: inflation. The problem is that when we raise wages, prices go up, so they cancel each other out. But when we follow this resolution, we are giving our representatives a direct incentive to find a balance. They'll want to have wages that aren't negated by inflation. Therefore, it will continued to be altered until a a balanced has been achieved. They'll want to achieve a balance because it is directly affecting them. This will ultimately have a huge positive effect on those living off of minimum wage. The transition period might be tough, but ultimately, it will get better.

Politics

All-elected-and-appointed-government-officials-should-be-paid-minimum-wage./1/

It's fine. This'll just be a shorter argument. I'll hit each of your contentions. 1.) There will always be people who want to be in office. Teaching jobs don't pay well, but there are still kids that want to be teachers. If anything, this will help us get a better pool of only people who are truly committed. 2.) Who says it isn't fair? this seems a bit more subjective to me. and besides, In general, our major branches of government aren't getting high approval ratings. why should we be paying them more for a job where they're not performing well? 3.) Ah, but with the amount of funds the government would be saving from these wage cuts, there'd be more than enough to pay for flights and hotels when needed. 4.) Yeah. They'd be poorer. That's the point. They say that this is enough to live by, so they should try to live by it. 5.) You can figure out a system for that. That's really just a technical argument. the main idea is that they have to be paid by minimum wage. A little technicality like that isn't enough to vote CON. And I don't see why they can't be paid hourly for that, either. How long do these meetings and phone calls last? that's how you pay them right there. And as for the working on paper work at home, there are a lot of people who work on paper work at home and don't get any pay for it (they still get hourly pay). Why should it be special for government officials? 6.) Okay, so the liberal who wants to raise minimum wage has to live by it too. Once again, they're setting the minimum wage, they should live by it, regardless of political ideology. It's just a basic ideological point that if someone says that this is enough to live by, they should be willing to live by it. This could even improve those liberals' outlooks on the situation, as they'll have firsthand experience, and know what actually needs to be done concerning minimum wage. 7.) I refer you to my rebuttal to your second point. Thank you. You thought of some arguments that I wasn't expecting. Keep in mind when writing your rebuttal that I won't have a chance to respond. So, try to be fair to me, I guess. :)

Geekis_Khan

It's fine. This'll just be a shorter argument. I'll hit each of your contentions. 1.) There will always be people who want to be in office. Teaching jobs don't pay well, but there are still kids that want to be teachers. If anything, this will help us get a better pool of only people who are truly committed. 2.) Who says it isn't fair? this seems a bit more subjective to me. and besides, In general, our major branches of government aren't getting high approval ratings. why should we be paying them more for a job where they're not performing well? 3.) Ah, but with the amount of funds the government would be saving from these wage cuts, there'd be more than enough to pay for flights and hotels when needed. 4.) Yeah. They'd be poorer. That's the point. They say that this is enough to live by, so they should try to live by it. 5.) You can figure out a system for that. That's really just a technical argument. the main idea is that they have to be paid by minimum wage. A little technicality like that isn't enough to vote CON. And I don't see why they can't be paid hourly for that, either. How long do these meetings and phone calls last? that's how you pay them right there. And as for the working on paper work at home, there are a lot of people who work on paper work at home and don't get any pay for it (they still get hourly pay). Why should it be special for government officials? 6.) Okay, so the liberal who wants to raise minimum wage has to live by it too. Once again, they're setting the minimum wage, they should live by it, regardless of political ideology. It's just a basic ideological point that if someone says that this is enough to live by, they should be willing to live by it. This could even improve those liberals' outlooks on the situation, as they'll have firsthand experience, and know what actually needs to be done concerning minimum wage. 7.) I refer you to my rebuttal to your second point. Thank you. You thought of some arguments that I wasn't expecting. Keep in mind when writing your rebuttal that I won't have a chance to respond. So, try to be fair to me, I guess. :)

Politics

All-elected-and-appointed-government-officials-should-be-paid-minimum-wage./1/

First, I'd like to apologize for bailing on you the last round. I was visiting my fianc for a week and didn't have time. Poor judgment in thinking I could make time for debate.org...lol Now, on to your points. I can definitely understand where you're coming from and the idea sounds like a fun kick in the pants to certain elected officials. The truth is, however, that this would be very impractical and unfair. I will list the problems below. 1.No one is going to want to run for office. We need these officials. Their positions are absolutely required for success, and if we don't pay them enough, their not gunna run for office. We'll be up the creek without an elected official... 2.Most people make more than minimum wage. Even a lot of fast food joints now pay a bit over minimum wage. To pay elected officials less than the bus boy at burger king is not fair. 3.Elected officials require a higher pay rate because they have to pay for things we don't. The government is very stingy about their office cost allowance, and officials often have to pay their own way on flights, hotels, car rentals, office meals, required dinners and social functions. They could never afford all of these, let alone food and shelter. 4.These elected officials certainly enjoyed a specific lifestyle before they were elected. Dropping their pay so much could result in them loosing their house or car. They'd have to drop cable and internet. They wouldn't be able to afford things like healthcare. You'd be dooming them to the poor house 5.How would you determine hourly pay? These people work often 24-7. Phone calls, late night meeting, paperwork at home. They couldn't just clock in for these hours. There would be too much argument over how many hours they truly worked. 6.Not all elected officials agree on minimum wage anyway. You might get a good kick on the die-hard republican, but your also kicking the liberal who wants to raise them for you. 7.Lastly, the world pays an individual what it thinks their worth based on their past. The fact of the matter is, outside of teenagers, who have very little in expenses, the people working minimum wage jobs are mostly those who didn't put in the effort to get a better job and/or education. Those running for office are getting paid better because they have earned better. They have worked harder and put in more effort. They deserve the extra pay.

JTSmith

First, I'd like to apologize for bailing on you the last round. I was visiting my fianc� for a week and didn't have time. Poor judgment in thinking I could make time for debate.org…lol Now, on to your points. I can definitely understand where you're coming from and the idea sounds like a fun kick in the pants to certain elected officials. The truth is, however, that this would be very impractical and unfair. I will list the problems below. 1.No one is going to want to run for office. We need these officials. Their positions are absolutely required for success, and if we don't pay them enough, their not gunna run for office. We'll be up the creek without an elected official… 2.Most people make more than minimum wage. Even a lot of fast food joints now pay a bit over minimum wage. To pay elected officials less than the bus boy at burger king is not fair. 3.Elected officials require a higher pay rate because they have to pay for things we don't. The government is very stingy about their office cost allowance, and officials often have to pay their own way on flights, hotels, car rentals, office meals, required dinners and social functions. They could never afford all of these, let alone food and shelter. 4.These elected officials certainly enjoyed a specific lifestyle before they were elected. Dropping their pay so much could result in them loosing their house or car. They'd have to drop cable and internet. They wouldn't be able to afford things like healthcare. You'd be dooming them to the poor house 5.How would you determine hourly pay? These people work often 24-7. Phone calls, late night meeting, paperwork at home. They couldn't just clock in for these hours. There would be too much argument over how many hours they truly worked. 6.Not all elected officials agree on minimum wage anyway. You might get a good kick on the die-hard republican, but your also kicking the liberal who wants to raise them for you. 7.Lastly, the world pays an individual what it thinks their worth based on their past. The fact of the matter is, outside of teenagers, who have very little in expenses, the people working minimum wage jobs are mostly those who didn't put in the effort to get a better job and/or education. Those running for office are getting paid better because they have earned better. They have worked harder and put in more effort. They deserve the extra pay.

Politics

All-elected-and-appointed-government-officials-should-be-paid-minimum-wage./1/

I'll hit each of your contentions as well. 1.) Teaching jobs pay better than minimum wage. Sure there are gunna be a few people who will take the job, but those most qualified are going to find better paying jobs. No one wants to go to college for at least 4 years to get payed minimum wage. If we want to continue to have qualified and hard-working individuals running this country, we need to pay them fairly. 2.) Running a congressional seat takes a lot more work and more hours than running a burger stand. Whether or not they are getting good approval ratings, they are still doing the work and still deserve to be paid thusly. 3.) Ok...as far as three goes...i'll take that point. Nice one... 4.) Its enough to live by for someone with less to pay for. Minimum wage is designed mostly for single young adults who need to pay rent and other basic expenses. These office holders are providing for a family. They need to be able to feed themselves as well as their kids. Odds are, they have a mortgage to pay. Not a rent. They have other expenses as well such as life insurance, more health insurance, more car insurance, homeowners insurance. These things would be absolutely necessary for people of their circumstances. If they were paid minimum wage they would have to declare bankruptcy and lose everything. Generally speaking, the people living off of minimum wage dont have these expenses. 5.) It should be special because government officials do it a lot more. My dad works for the government. He spends hours at home doing work. The same applies to other government officials. They spend hours doing this kind of work. The government would literally be stiffing them if they ignored these hours. Besides, there would be all kinds of conflicts and even lawsuits over paychecks. Not worth it. 6.) They Liberal isnt saying that its enough to live by, but he still gets the punishment??? There is no logic to that. Its like those days back in elementary school when one could threw a paper ball and the whole class had to stay in from recess. Lets punish everyone for on man's crime??? I think not... The fact of the matter is that these people have earned more and they need more. Whether or not you agree with them about minimum wage, they deserve their pay, just like i deserve my 12 dollars an hour. Giving them a few weeks on minimum wage is on thing, but only paying them minimum wage is far too unreasonable for the work that they do and the things that they accomplish.

JTSmith

I'll hit each of your contentions as well. 1.) Teaching jobs pay better than minimum wage. Sure there are gunna be a few people who will take the job, but those most qualified are going to find better paying jobs. No one wants to go to college for at least 4 years to get payed minimum wage. If we want to continue to have qualified and hard-working individuals running this country, we need to pay them fairly. 2.) Running a congressional seat takes a lot more work and more hours than running a burger stand. Whether or not they are getting good approval ratings, they are still doing the work and still deserve to be paid thusly. 3.) Ok...as far as three goes...i'll take that point. Nice one... 4.) Its enough to live by for someone with less to pay for. Minimum wage is designed mostly for single young adults who need to pay rent and other basic expenses. These office holders are providing for a family. They need to be able to feed themselves as well as their kids. Odds are, they have a mortgage to pay. Not a rent. They have other expenses as well such as life insurance, more health insurance, more car insurance, homeowners insurance. These things would be absolutely necessary for people of their circumstances. If they were paid minimum wage they would have to declare bankruptcy and lose everything. Generally speaking, the people living off of minimum wage dont have these expenses. 5.) It should be special because government officials do it a lot more. My dad works for the government. He spends hours at home doing work. The same applies to other government officials. They spend hours doing this kind of work. The government would literally be stiffing them if they ignored these hours. Besides, there would be all kinds of conflicts and even lawsuits over paychecks. Not worth it. 6.) They Liberal isnt saying that its enough to live by, but he still gets the punishment??? There is no logic to that. Its like those days back in elementary school when one could threw a paper ball and the whole class had to stay in from recess. Lets punish everyone for on man's crime??? I think not... The fact of the matter is that these people have earned more and they need more. Whether or not you agree with them about minimum wage, they deserve their pay, just like i deserve my 12 dollars an hour. Giving them a few weeks on minimum wage is on thing, but only paying them minimum wage is far too unreasonable for the work that they do and the things that they accomplish.

Politics

All-elected-and-appointed-government-officials-should-be-paid-minimum-wage./1/

Candice are you on another insane tyrant?? 1st. "Why not give first time parents the knowledge they SHOULD have, upon bringing home they're new babies? You can't fix a problem you don't have any idea about fixing." - As far as I am concerned anyone who is even considering producing offspring should make sure that this information is already known. 2nd. "First time parents need to take a course giving them knowledgeable and up to date first aid techniques, and safety information on how to handle emergency situations." - Sure, there already are many courses you can choose to take. <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... 3rd. "Why not sit through a couple of hours for the safety of your new offspring? It's responsible, already recommended, and wouldn't hurt anything." - Your 100% correct it should be recommended and responsible parents who are un-factuated about the topic probably should take a course or something to that extent. However, I am afraid that you made a vital mistake, "All first time parents should be required to take a safety class" I don't think so to me this is a wolf in sheep's clothing. This would be something you see in China or Russia not the United States of America. This would be infringing on citizen privacy. The last group of people on this planet who need to be telling American citizens to mandate something like a baby course would be the government. Government needs to stay out of American homes. I put my trust in the smart American women to figure out what they need to do with their child not government officials.

Jlconservative

Candice are you on another insane tyrant?? 1st. "Why not give first time parents the knowledge they SHOULD have, upon bringing home they're new babies? You can't fix a problem you don't have any idea about fixing." - As far as I am concerned anyone who is even considering producing offspring should make sure that this information is already known. 2nd. "First time parents need to take a course giving them knowledgeable and up to date first aid techniques, and safety information on how to handle emergency situations." - Sure, there already are many courses you can choose to take. http://pregnancy.about.com... http://www.mayoclinic.com... http://sonce1.nursing.sunysb.edu... http://www.babycenter.com... 3rd. "Why not sit through a couple of hours for the safety of your new offspring? It's responsible, already recommended, and wouldn't hurt anything." - Your 100% correct it should be recommended and responsible parents who are un-factuated about the topic probably should take a course or something to that extent. However, I am afraid that you made a vital mistake, "All first time parents should be required to take a safety class" I don't think so to me this is a wolf in sheep's clothing. This would be something you see in China or Russia not the United States of America. This would be infringing on citizen privacy. The last group of people on this planet who need to be telling American citizens to mandate something like a baby course would be the government. Government needs to stay out of American homes. I put my trust in the smart American women to figure out what they need to do with their child not government officials.

Health

All-first-time-parents-should-be-required-to-take-a-safety-class-for-the-emergency-care-of-infant/1/

"How is insuring the safety of infants insane, Steve? I agree that all people should be educated about these things before they have a baby. Although, there are many people who simply do not take the time. What is wrong with insuring that they do?" - Look Candice your killing freedom that is why, your argument is not that allot of first time parents are inadequate to raise children. It is that "All first time parents should be REQUIRED" When you say that I see a program that my tax dollars have to go to, where women are forced to go take this class. If they fail to attend they receive a fine or at worst get children taken away because they did not go to a stupid government program teaching parents how to raise their kids. "You making a point about classes already being available does not in any way disprove my point of every parent needing to take one." - Of course not, but it dose show that the courses are out there and that women who have children can decide for themselves if they need a course or not. It's not up to government it's up to the people. "Laws are everywhere, Steve. People aren't allowed to abuse they're children. Why? Because of laws, put in place by our government." - This is your problem my friend, you have it in your head that the reason the majority of people do not murder or steal or rape is because government says it's bad. This is not the case the reason these things are looked down upon is because they are morally wrong not because government says they are bad. "Laws are there, to protect people. What better enforcement, than a law that secures safety? There's no privacy needed! You don't know how to handle an emergency? Fix it! Don't be embarrassed, get educated. Get informed." - Of course you can paint the picture that way, but it dose not fit into personal freedom. Why should the government be able to decide if a parent is capable or not?? It is not up to them!! the classes are there the people must make their own minds up, we are not sheep Candice that need to rely on big daddy government to hold our hands. The American people have brains. "Also Steve, I wouldn't consider EVERY American woman smart." - Of course not look at Hillary Clinton supporters.

Jlconservative

"How is insuring the safety of infants insane, Steve? I agree that all people should be educated about these things before they have a baby. Although, there are many people who simply do not take the time. What is wrong with insuring that they do?" - Look Candice your killing freedom that is why, your argument is not that allot of first time parents are inadequate to raise children. It is that "All first time parents should be REQUIRED" When you say that I see a program that my tax dollars have to go to, where women are forced to go take this class. If they fail to attend they receive a fine or at worst get children taken away because they did not go to a stupid government program teaching parents how to raise their kids. "You making a point about classes already being available does not in any way disprove my point of every parent needing to take one." - Of course not, but it dose show that the courses are out there and that women who have children can decide for themselves if they need a course or not. It's not up to government it's up to the people. "Laws are everywhere, Steve. People aren't allowed to abuse they're children. Why? Because of laws, put in place by our government." - This is your problem my friend, you have it in your head that the reason the majority of people do not murder or steal or rape is because government says it's bad. This is not the case the reason these things are looked down upon is because they are morally wrong not because government says they are bad. "Laws are there, to protect people. What better enforcement, than a law that secures safety? There's no privacy needed! You don't know how to handle an emergency? Fix it! Don't be embarrassed, get educated. Get informed." - Of course you can paint the picture that way, but it dose not fit into personal freedom. Why should the government be able to decide if a parent is capable or not?? It is not up to them!! the classes are there the people must make their own minds up, we are not sheep Candice that need to rely on big daddy government to hold our hands. The American people have brains. "Also Steve, I wouldn't consider EVERY American woman smart." - Of course not look at Hillary Clinton supporters.

Health

All-first-time-parents-should-be-required-to-take-a-safety-class-for-the-emergency-care-of-infant/1/

Why not give first time parents the knowledge they SHOULD have, upon bringing home they're new babies? You can't fix a problem you don't have any idea about fixing. What if your baby starts choking? Get's burned? Or has a seizure? First time parents need to take a course giving them knowledgeable and up to date first aid techniques, and safety information on how to handle emergency situations. This is a simple remedy to help babies that would otherwise be mishandled not because of lack of care, but lack of education. Why not sit through a couple of hours for the safety of your new offspring? It's responsible, already recommended, and wouldn't hurt anything.

candice

Why not give first time parents the knowledge they SHOULD have, upon bringing home they're new babies? You can't fix a problem you don't have any idea about fixing. What if your baby starts choking? Get's burned? Or has a seizure? First time parents need to take a course giving them knowledgeable and up to date first aid techniques, and safety information on how to handle emergency situations. This is a simple remedy to help babies that would otherwise be mishandled not because of lack of care, but lack of education. Why not sit through a couple of hours for the safety of your new offspring? It's responsible, already recommended, and wouldn't hurt anything.

Health

All-first-time-parents-should-be-required-to-take-a-safety-class-for-the-emergency-care-of-infant/1/

How is insuring the safety of infants insane, Steve? I agree that all people should be educated about these things before they have a baby. Although, there are many people who simply do not take the time. What is wrong with insuring that they do? You making a point about classes already being available does not in any way disprove my point of every parent needing to take one. < > Laws are everywhere, Steve. People aren't allowed to abuse they're children. Why? Because of laws, put in place by our government. Why? For the safety of our citizens. Laws are there, to protect people. What better enforcement, than a law that secures safety? There's no privacy needed! You don't know how to handle an emergency? Fix it! Don't be embarrassed, get educated. Get informed. Also Steve, I wouldn't consider EVERY American woman smart. There are some IDIOTS that have offspring. Shouldn't those babies be given every little chance of health and happiness possible?

candice

How is insuring the safety of infants insane, Steve? I agree that all people should be educated about these things before they have a baby. Although, there are many people who simply do not take the time. What is wrong with insuring that they do? You making a point about classes already being available does not in any way disprove my point of every parent needing to take one. < > Laws are everywhere, Steve. People aren't allowed to abuse they're children. Why? Because of laws, put in place by our government. Why? For the safety of our citizens. Laws are there, to protect people. What better enforcement, than a law that secures safety? There's no privacy needed! You don't know how to handle an emergency? Fix it! Don't be embarrassed, get educated. Get informed. Also Steve, I wouldn't consider EVERY American woman smart. There are some IDIOTS that have offspring. Shouldn't those babies be given every little chance of health and happiness possible?

Health

All-first-time-parents-should-be-required-to-take-a-safety-class-for-the-emergency-care-of-infant/1/

<<- Look Candice your killing freedom that is why, your argument is not that allot of first time parents are inadequate to raise children. It is that "All first time parents should be REQUIRED">> So, are you insinuating that children should not be given every chance of health and happiness because YOU think that the government shouldn't REQUIRE you to do anything? Sorry to tell you, but that's what our government is here for. To insure that we live life lawfully, and treat other's around us with care and respect. Why should American children not get the same respect, and insurance of safety and care? < > Your tax dollars will be going to SOMETHING, so why not some to that? Perhaps we could tax cigarette's more so idiot's that smoke could pay for it. This will not be a parenting class, it will a first aid, and safety class. Things that ALL parents need, and should definitely be equipped with. <<- This is your problem my friend, you have it in your head that the reason the majority of people do not murder or steal or rape is because government says it's bad. This is not the case the reason these things are looked down upon is because they are morally wrong not because government says they are bad.>> I guarantee you 100% that if you legalized murder, murder rates would go up.Same of rape, same for burglary. I also guarantee you 100%, that if you made it mandatory to go to a safety class, that the survival of infants and toddlers involved in an emergency accident, or medical emergency would go up. Isn't that worth your tax dollars? More babies being safe and secure, that's worth the world! < > It might annoy those who must go to this class. Although, when an emergency happens and they know what to do... it will be worth millions. Those two hours could change your whole life. If you loose your baby, and latter find that if you knew how to handle the emergency they would otherwise be alive, it would crush you. Two hours and it can make or break your whole world. Accident's WILL happen. Some big, some small. Why not equip this country with the knowledge we SHOULD have to insure our offspring safe lives. Your right, American's do have brains. Some people aren't equiped with up to date safety techniques. The "big daddy government" wouldn't be holding your hand, it would be holding the hand of the innocent infants that cannot ask they're parents to please know what to do if they have a seizure, or stop breathing. <<- Of course not look at Hillary Clinton supporters.>> Insulting Hillary Clinton supporters doesn't help your case, Steve. Grow up. This safety class wouldn't infringe on American's personally freedom. We would be empowering all parents to be strong, and educated on how to make all of our children safe and secure. Whatever my opponent says about personal freedom is just a ploy. Yes, or Government shouldn't tell us what to do in all aspects of our life. We can make our own parenting decisions. How does insuring the safety of these children take away freedom? How does giving a mother and father information they might HAVE to use about third degree burns on an infant hurt our freedom? What you do in an emergency is important. You could either do something that hurts, or helps. Why not make sure that we all have the information and knowledge to help. America is a great Nation. Why not make sure we all have the fundamentals on child safety. It's a small and easy step that we all NEED to take. This will make sure that those who wouldn't otherwise would get important safety techniques to help they're babies. Would you want to not pass a bill that would save babies lives because of a threat that it would invade privacy? There would be nothing but good from this program. The government doesn't make you raise your family a certain way, and they shouldn't. All this would do was insure that babies get all the chance they need to live healthy, and safely. Protecting the rights of children that deserve to live healthy, happy, and safely. That is the purpose of our Government. To protect the rights of ALL.

candice

<<- Look Candice your killing freedom that is why, your argument is not that allot of first time parents are inadequate to raise children. It is that "All first time parents should be REQUIRED">> So, are you insinuating that children should not be given every chance of health and happiness because YOU think that the government shouldn't REQUIRE you to do anything? Sorry to tell you, but that's what our government is here for. To insure that we live life lawfully, and treat other's around us with care and respect. Why should American children not get the same respect, and insurance of safety and care? < > Your tax dollars will be going to SOMETHING, so why not some to that? Perhaps we could tax cigarette's more so idiot's that smoke could pay for it. This will not be a parenting class, it will a first aid, and safety class. Things that ALL parents need, and should definitely be equipped with. <<- This is your problem my friend, you have it in your head that the reason the majority of people do not murder or steal or rape is because government says it's bad. This is not the case the reason these things are looked down upon is because they are morally wrong not because government says they are bad.>> I guarantee you 100% that if you legalized murder, murder rates would go up.Same of rape, same for burglary. I also guarantee you 100%, that if you made it mandatory to go to a safety class, that the survival of infants and toddlers involved in an emergency accident, or medical emergency would go up. Isn't that worth your tax dollars? More babies being safe and secure, that's worth the world! < > It might annoy those who must go to this class. Although, when an emergency happens and they know what to do… it will be worth millions. Those two hours could change your whole life. If you loose your baby, and latter find that if you knew how to handle the emergency they would otherwise be alive, it would crush you. Two hours and it can make or break your whole world. Accident's WILL happen. Some big, some small. Why not equip this country with the knowledge we SHOULD have to insure our offspring safe lives. Your right, American's do have brains. Some people aren't equiped with up to date safety techniques. The "big daddy government" wouldn't be holding your hand, it would be holding the hand of the innocent infants that cannot ask they're parents to please know what to do if they have a seizure, or stop breathing. <<- Of course not look at Hillary Clinton supporters.>> Insulting Hillary Clinton supporters doesn't help your case, Steve. Grow up. This safety class wouldn't infringe on American's personally freedom. We would be empowering all parents to be strong, and educated on how to make all of our children safe and secure. Whatever my opponent says about personal freedom is just a ploy. Yes, or Government shouldn't tell us what to do in all aspects of our life. We can make our own parenting decisions. How does insuring the safety of these children take away freedom? How does giving a mother and father information they might HAVE to use about third degree burns on an infant hurt our freedom? What you do in an emergency is important. You could either do something that hurts, or helps. Why not make sure that we all have the information and knowledge to help. America is a great Nation. Why not make sure we all have the fundamentals on child safety. It's a small and easy step that we all NEED to take. This will make sure that those who wouldn't otherwise would get important safety techniques to help they're babies. Would you want to not pass a bill that would save babies lives because of a threat that it would invade privacy? There would be nothing but good from this program. The government doesn't make you raise your family a certain way, and they shouldn't. All this would do was insure that babies get all the chance they need to live healthy, and safely. Protecting the rights of children that deserve to live healthy, happy, and safely. That is the purpose of our Government. To protect the rights of ALL.

Health

All-first-time-parents-should-be-required-to-take-a-safety-class-for-the-emergency-care-of-infant/1/

"The electron (as far as we know) is a structureless point particle, and its spin angular momentum cannot be composed into orbital angular momentum of constituent parts." - from Griffith's "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics," the standard undergrad textbook on the subject. [1] My opponent's argument completely misrepresents the laws of physics. As far as physicists know, particles are not rigid bodies, they are points (or in physics what we call "fields") with a radius of 0. Therefore, everything my opponent has argued does not apply to particles. If the angular momentum of a particle came from the particle actually spinning around, and the particle had some kind of radius, then the particle would have to spin much quicker than the speed of light. Of course, this is physically impossible. There are proofs that show all particles are 0-dimensional or 1-dimensional. In either case, all particles have a radius of 0. Therefore, the resolution is affirmed. [1] <URL>...

FourTrouble

"The electron (as far as we know) is a structureless point particle, and its spin angular momentum cannot be composed into orbital angular momentum of constituent parts." - from Griffith's "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics," the standard undergrad textbook on the subject. [1] My opponent's argument completely misrepresents the laws of physics. As far as physicists know, particles are not rigid bodies, they are points (or in physics what we call "fields") with a radius of 0. Therefore, everything my opponent has argued does not apply to particles. If the angular momentum of a particle came from the particle actually spinning around, and the particle had some kind of radius, then the particle would have to spin much quicker than the speed of light. Of course, this is physically impossible. There are proofs that show all particles are 0-dimensional or 1-dimensional. In either case, all particles have a radius of 0. Therefore, the resolution is affirmed. [1] http://www.physics.sjtu.edu.cn...

Science

All-particles-with-angular-motion-are-in-a-radius-approaching-0./1/

I am having a hard time understand what my opponent is talking about. If I am not mistaken, my opponent argues that the angular momentum of a rigid body comes from "tangential motion," by which I believe my opponent means the "orbital angular momentum" of the particles in a rigid body (a rigid body is a collection of particles). Then, my opponent (I might be giving him too much credit here, as I'm filling in the holes in his argument...) states the same thing I said in the previous round: for a rigid body to have 0 radius, the particles which make up the rigid body would have to move faster than the speed of light. I already explained why this is not physically possible. There are many other problems with my opponent's argument. For example, particles are not rigid bodies. Rigid bodies are made up of particles, and can have a radius, but the issue at stake in this debate is that of particles, not rigid bodies. I have clearly shown that particles do not have a radius. Hence, the resolution is affirmed.

FourTrouble

I am having a hard time understand what my opponent is talking about. If I am not mistaken, my opponent argues that the angular momentum of a rigid body comes from "tangential motion," by which I believe my opponent means the "orbital angular momentum" of the particles in a rigid body (a rigid body is a collection of particles). Then, my opponent (I might be giving him too much credit here, as I'm filling in the holes in his argument...) states the same thing I said in the previous round: for a rigid body to have 0 radius, the particles which make up the rigid body would have to move faster than the speed of light. I already explained why this is not physically possible. There are many other problems with my opponent's argument. For example, particles are not rigid bodies. Rigid bodies are made up of particles, and can have a radius, but the issue at stake in this debate is that of particles, not rigid bodies. I have clearly shown that particles do not have a radius. Hence, the resolution is affirmed.

Science

All-particles-with-angular-motion-are-in-a-radius-approaching-0./1/

A first state of motion does not occur when a rigid body undergoes rotational motion. The tangential motion of each particle is insufficient to increase proportionally with the radius from the axis of rotation and only the radius of the particle in the axis of rotation approaches 1. By approaching one the rigid body has an angular motion. Wikipedia's Article On Rigid Bodies: <URL>...

abstractposters

A first state of motion does not occur when a rigid body undergoes rotational motion. The tangential motion of each particle is insufficient to increase proportionally with the radius from the axis of rotation and only the radius of the particle in the axis of rotation approaches 1. By approaching one the rigid body has an angular motion. Wikipedia's Article On Rigid Bodies: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Science

All-particles-with-angular-motion-are-in-a-radius-approaching-0./1/

A second state of rotation does not describe the semi-rigid body undergoes motion. The tangential motion of each particle is insufficient to increase proportionally with the radius from the axis of rotation and only a passing of a particle is conservative. There is not an external force at all to pass this particle, let alone sufficiently remove that particle. A first state of motion does not occur when a rigid body undergoes rotational motion. The tangential motion of each particle is insufficient to increase proportionally with the radius from the axis of rotation and only the radius of the particle in the axis of rotation approaches 1. By approaching one the rigid body has an angular motion. Wikipedia's Article On Rigid Bodies: <URL>...

abstractposters

A second state of rotation does not describe the semi-rigid body undergoes motion. The tangential motion of each particle is insufficient to increase proportionally with the radius from the axis of rotation and only a passing of a particle is conservative. There is not an external force at all to pass this particle, let alone sufficiently remove that particle. A first state of motion does not occur when a rigid body undergoes rotational motion. The tangential motion of each particle is insufficient to increase proportionally with the radius from the axis of rotation and only the radius of the particle in the axis of rotation approaches 1. By approaching one the rigid body has an angular motion. Wikipedia's Article On Rigid Bodies: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Science

All-particles-with-angular-motion-are-in-a-radius-approaching-0./1/

Round 1 is for acceptance, and stating your broad counter-stance (no arguments or proofs needed.) Rounds 2 & 3 are for arguments, and rebuttals. Round for is for final thoughts and observations. Opening statement: Based on the ineffectual efforts of the U.S' "War on Drugs", and based on the spirit of The Declaration of Independence as well as The Constitution - where we are to view each other as free, responsible individuals- the possession and use of recreational drugs should be legalized.

akmo47

Round 1 is for acceptance, and stating your broad counter-stance (no arguments or proofs needed.) Rounds 2 & 3 are for arguments, and rebuttals. Round for is for final thoughts and observations. Opening statement: Based on the ineffectual efforts of the U.S' "War on Drugs", and based on the spirit of The Declaration of Independence as well as The Constitution - where we are to view each other as free, responsible individuals- the possession and use of recreational drugs should be legalized.

Politics

All-recreational-drugs-should-be-legalized-in-the-U.S-and-sold-commercially-with-a-tax/1/

Outline I. Opening statement II. Solar panels III. Electric car IV. Wind power V. Hydro power VI. Food VII. Summary VIII. Links I. Stupidape's opening statement I will make my argument based upon reduction as opposed to alternate energy. Including such topics as net metering for solar panels and how the people with the most solar panels use the most electricity. Solar panels taking oil to manufacture. Wind farms are dangerous to birds. Remember, reduce, reuse, recycle. I will focus on the reduce part. II. Solar panels Solar panels sound great in theory. Yet, in practice the people who use the most electricity have the most solar panels. Since solar panels are based upon light energy, when a cloudy day occurs conventional production of electricity is needed. What this creates is a spike in energy usage and demand on the grid. This is why electric companies are fighting back with net metering. "What else should I know about net metering?The rules for net metering vary greatly depending on the state you live in. For most net metering arrangements, you must pay a monthly connection fee to transfer your electricity into the grid. The value of the energy credits you receive, particulars on how banked energy credit is paid out and how long the energy credits you receive last are other considerations that vary by state as well." [1] "Low-income households, they say, are paying higher electric bills to subsidize solar arrays that only wealthier people can afford." [2] "Electric utilities argue that these policies have become far too unwieldy. After all, these new solar-powered homes and businesses are all still connected to the grid (not least because they still need electricity from traditional power plants when the sun isn't shining). But the utility is getting less money from these customers to maintain and repair that grid. As such, utilities argue that they should be allowed to charge rooftop solar owners a maintenance or connection fee of some sort." [3] What this shows is that solar panels do less good than orginally predicted. Another problem is if people see the electricity as free they are more likely to use more. Finally, solar panels take raw materials to construct. "Solar panels don't come falling out of the sky - they have to be manufactured. Similar to computer chips, this is a dirty and energy-intensive process. First, raw materials have to be mined: quartz sand for silicon cells, metal ore for thin film cells. Next, these materials have to be treated, following different steps (in the case of silicon cells these are purification, crystallization and wafering). Finally, these upgraded materials have to be manufactured into solar cells, and assembled into modules. All these processes produce air pollution and heavy metal emissions, and they consume energy - which brings about more air pollution, heavy metal emissions and also greenhouse gases." [4] All in all its clear that reducing your electricity useage via turning off lights, energy efficient machines, led lightbulbs, etc, is a better option. III. Electric car Many of the same arguments for solar panels can be used for electric cars. It takes material to make an electric car. Repair and replacement of parts. Building of charging stations. Electricity to run electric cars. A person is much better off walking or bicycling. IV. Wind power "But there are some people who disagree and are fighting the installation of new wind turbines in the United States. They cite bird mortality as an unacceptable side effect of wind-generated power. Through lawsuits and protests against pending legislation, they hope to save huge numbers of birds from death at the blades of massive wind turbines." [5] The same arguments about cost to build and maintain solar panels can be made for wind farms. During low wind days, coal powered power plants are still needed. Some birds are killed by wind farms. V. Hydro power "Hydroelectric power plants may affect fish is a complex interaction between numerous physical and biological factors. More user interests related to exploitation of fish species, which helps that this is a field that many have strong opinions on." [6] Again, cost and maintenance as opposed to using less electricity. During droughts coal powered plants are still needed. Hydro plants affect wildlife. VI. Food Our food choices affect the environment also. Beef is very resource intensive. "A 1/3-pound burger requires 660 gallons of water. Most of this water is for producing beef (see below). 1 pound of beef requires 1,799 gallons of water, which includes irrigation of the grains and grasses in feed, plus water for drinking and processing. 1 slice of bread requires 11 gallons of water. Most of this water is for producing wheat (see below). 1 pound of wheat requires 132 gallons of water." [7]. " 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. " [8] "Meat is less efficient because we eat the animal that eats the grain instead of eating the grain ourselves. It takes about 15 pounds of feed to make 1 pound of beef, 6 pounds of feed for 1 pound of pork and 5 pounds of feed for 1 pound of chicken, the Department of Agriculture estimates. For catfish, it's about 2 pounds of feed per pound of fish." [9] VII. Summary In summary alternative energy is not the way to go. In lieu of alternative energy reduce your consumption and make more environmentally friendly choices. Ultimately, the more energy you consume the more infrastructure that will be needed, built, and repaired. Instead, go vegan and reduce your energy consumption. Consider less children. Thanks for the debate. VIII. Links 1. <URL>... 2. <URL>... 3. <URL>... 4. <URL>... 5. <URL>... 6. <URL>... 7. <URL>... 8. <URL>... 9. <URL>...

Stupidape

Outline I. Opening statement II. Solar panels III. Electric car IV. Wind power V. Hydro power VI. Food VII. Summary VIII. Links I. Stupidape's opening statement I will make my argument based upon reduction as opposed to alternate energy. Including such topics as net metering for solar panels and how the people with the most solar panels use the most electricity. Solar panels taking oil to manufacture. Wind farms are dangerous to birds. Remember, reduce, reuse, recycle. I will focus on the reduce part. II. Solar panels Solar panels sound great in theory. Yet, in practice the people who use the most electricity have the most solar panels. Since solar panels are based upon light energy, when a cloudy day occurs conventional production of electricity is needed. What this creates is a spike in energy usage and demand on the grid. This is why electric companies are fighting back with net metering. "What else should I know about net metering?The rules for net metering vary greatly depending on the state you live in. For most net metering arrangements, you must pay a monthly connection fee to transfer your electricity into the grid. The value of the energy credits you receive, particulars on how banked energy credit is paid out and how long the energy credits you receive last are other considerations that vary by state as well." [1] "Low-income households, they say, are paying higher electric bills to subsidize solar arrays that only wealthier people can afford." [2] "Electric utilities argue that these policies have become far too unwieldy. After all, these new solar-powered homes and businesses are all still connected to the grid (not least because they still need electricity from traditional power plants when the sun isn't shining). But the utility is getting less money from these customers to maintain and repair that grid. As such, utilities argue that they should be allowed to charge rooftop solar owners a maintenance or connection fee of some sort." [3] What this shows is that solar panels do less good than orginally predicted. Another problem is if people see the electricity as free they are more likely to use more. Finally, solar panels take raw materials to construct. "Solar panels don’t come falling out of the sky – they have to be manufactured. Similar to computer chips, this is a dirty and energy-intensive process. First, raw materials have to be mined: quartz sand for silicon cells, metal ore for thin film cells. Next, these materials have to be treated, following different steps (in the case of silicon cells these are purification, crystallization and wafering). Finally, these upgraded materials have to be manufactured into solar cells, and assembled into modules. All these processes produce air pollution and heavy metal emissions, and they consume energy - which brings about more air pollution, heavy metal emissions and also greenhouse gases." [4] All in all its clear that reducing your electricity useage via turning off lights, energy efficient machines, led lightbulbs, etc, is a better option. III. Electric car Many of the same arguments for solar panels can be used for electric cars. It takes material to make an electric car. Repair and replacement of parts. Building of charging stations. Electricity to run electric cars. A person is much better off walking or bicycling. IV. Wind power "But there are some people who disagree and are fighting the installation of new wind turbines in the United States. They cite bird mortality as an unacceptable side effect of wind-generated power. Through lawsuits and protests against pending legislation, they hope to save huge numbers of birds from death at the blades of massive wind turbines." [5] The same arguments about cost to build and maintain solar panels can be made for wind farms. During low wind days, coal powered power plants are still needed. Some birds are killed by wind farms. V. Hydro power "Hydroelectric power plants may affect fish is a complex interaction between numerous physical and biological factors. More user interests related to exploitation of fish species, which helps that this is a field that many have strong opinions on." [6] Again, cost and maintenance as opposed to using less electricity. During droughts coal powered plants are still needed. Hydro plants affect wildlife. VI. Food Our food choices affect the environment also. Beef is very resource intensive. "A 1/3-pound burger requires 660 gallons of water. Most of this water is for producing beef (see below). 1 pound of beef requires 1,799 gallons of water, which includes irrigation of the grains and grasses in feed, plus water for drinking and processing. 1 slice of bread requires 11 gallons of water. Most of this water is for producing wheat (see below). 1 pound of wheat requires 132 gallons of water." [7]. " 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. " [8] "Meat is less efficient because we eat the animal that eats the grain instead of eating the grain ourselves. It takes about 15 pounds of feed to make 1 pound of beef, 6 pounds of feed for 1 pound of pork and 5 pounds of feed for 1 pound of chicken, the Department of Agriculture estimates. For catfish, it's about 2 pounds of feed per pound of fish." [9] VII. Summary In summary alternative energy is not the way to go. In lieu of alternative energy reduce your consumption and make more environmentally friendly choices. Ultimately, the more energy you consume the more infrastructure that will be needed, built, and repaired. Instead, go vegan and reduce your energy consumption. Consider less children. Thanks for the debate. VIII. Links 1. http://mysolar.com... 2. http://www.latimes.com... 3. http://www.vox.com... 4. http://www.lowtechmagazine.com... 5. http://science.howstuffworks.com... 6. http://energyinformative.org... 7. http://www.latimes.com... 8. http://www.greenpeace.org... 9. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...

Science

Alternate-energy/1/

Opponent has forfeited.

Stupidape

Opponent has forfeited.

Science

Alternate-energy/1/

"All men are created equal; they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This is implemented at the beginning of the Declaration of Independence. Denying the right for all legal citizens to be eligible for Presidency is contradicting what our founding fathers set forth for us over 200 years ago. Because all legal citizens should be entitled to a full set of equal rights and since all citizens are equally American, I stand in resolute affirmation of this idea. It states in Article 2 Section 1 of the constitution that no person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States may be eligible for Presidential office. By stating this in the constitution, are we condemning others for where they were born by denying this right? Should we be punishing others for wherever they were born, which they had absolutely no control over? This is utterly ridiculous. It is absolutely absurd and contradictory for the so called, "Melting Pot" to deny this right to immigrants. All legal citizens whether they be natural born or not, should be entitled to an equal set of rights as stated in my first contention. Being a natural born citizen of the United States does not make you more qualified than someone who was not. We should judge someone who is qualified for Presidency, not by where they were born, but by their passion, knowledge and character. Holding such absurd principles that we have now defies the fundamental principles of our nation. If one doesn't have to be a natural born citizen to hold a position in the House or Senate, then why is one denied the right for Presidency? After all, isn't the sole purpose of the checks and balance system to maintain equal power among all three? If this is so, shouldn't the same qualifications apply for the same amount of power? Not allowing the same standards for all three goes against the sole purpose of this system. In addition, being born in America does not make you more "American" than others. Where you were born is by chance, not by choice. But we have the choice to amend the constitution and follow what rights our founding fathers granted to us. In summation, because being a natural born citizen does not make you more qualified than someone who others and all citizens are equally American, I urge you to amend Article 2 Section1 of the United States Constitution.

jnghiem93

"All men are created equal; they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This is implemented at the beginning of the Declaration of Independence. Denying the right for all legal citizens to be eligible for Presidency is contradicting what our founding fathers set forth for us over 200 years ago. Because all legal citizens should be entitled to a full set of equal rights and since all citizens are equally American, I stand in resolute affirmation of this idea. It states in Article 2 Section 1 of the constitution that no person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States may be eligible for Presidential office. By stating this in the constitution, are we condemning others for where they were born by denying this right? Should we be punishing others for wherever they were born, which they had absolutely no control over? This is utterly ridiculous. It is absolutely absurd and contradictory for the so called, "Melting Pot" to deny this right to immigrants. All legal citizens whether they be natural born or not, should be entitled to an equal set of rights as stated in my first contention. Being a natural born citizen of the United States does not make you more qualified than someone who was not. We should judge someone who is qualified for Presidency, not by where they were born, but by their passion, knowledge and character. Holding such absurd principles that we have now defies the fundamental principles of our nation. If one doesn't have to be a natural born citizen to hold a position in the House or Senate, then why is one denied the right for Presidency? After all, isn't the sole purpose of the checks and balance system to maintain equal power among all three? If this is so, shouldn't the same qualifications apply for the same amount of power? Not allowing the same standards for all three goes against the sole purpose of this system. In addition, being born in America does not make you more "American" than others. Where you were born is by chance, not by choice. But we have the choice to amend the constitution and follow what rights our founding fathers granted to us. In summation, because being a natural born citizen does not make you more qualified than someone who others and all citizens are equally American, I urge you to amend Article 2 Section1 of the United States Constitution.

Politics

Amend-Article-2-Section-1-of-the-Consitution/1/

Attack on my opppnents case: :First, all citizens DESERVE the same rights, but those rights can be limited based on actions and/or circumstances. :For instance a criminal loses the right to bear arms because of their criminal act. Thus, the idea that positive rights :cannot be taken away is totally fallacious. The rights granted to citizens are limited based on actions and/or circumstances. BUT, birth should not be one of those circumstances. What does birth have anything to do with your ability to run a country? NOTHING. :Thus, the idea that positive rights cannot be taken away is totally fallacious. I am not stating this idea. I am merely suggesting that the circumstances in which such rights would be GRANTED need to be changed. You have been mistaken. :Second, I would argue that some rights are privileges, or something that must be earned. Not all rights are given to :you at birth. E.g. life Some rights are priviliges indeed. Thus, the circumstances in which we can aquire such privilges should be equal. We all get a chance at these privilages. "All men are created equal." This quote is contradicted when we do not allow equal means to equal privilages. :In the case of a natural born citizen vs. any other person, the natural born citizen would most likely have no other :loyalties to a foreign sovereign state. The natural born citizen has been a US citizen for his/her whole life, whereas a :citizen that came from another country has had past loyalties, not to the US. Can we not have such loyalities to other foreign nations and still be highly qualified for Presidency? Relations with other nations have no effect on a persons ability to run a country. :Basically the natural born citizen is the most appropriate pick to fill the top office in dealing with the contractual duties :of the US (People --> Government --> People Can you tell me reasons why this is so? :The natural born citizen has no other sovereign loyalties and thus has a clear contractual duty with only the US. Not ONE person has suggested or insinuated that one who has had other soveriegn loyalties can NOT have clear contractual duties to only with the U.S. And who are we to assume that they have even had other sovereign loyalties. They could have moved here when they were young children or babies. We need to judge someones ability for Presidency not on their birth location which they had NO control over.

jnghiem93

Attack on my opppnents case: :First, all citizens DESERVE the same rights, but those rights can be limited based on actions and/or circumstances. :For instance a criminal loses the right to bear arms because of their criminal act. Thus, the idea that positive rights :cannot be taken away is totally fallacious. The rights granted to citizens are limited based on actions and/or circumstances. BUT, birth should not be one of those circumstances. What does birth have anything to do with your ability to run a country? NOTHING. :Thus, the idea that positive rights cannot be taken away is totally fallacious. I am not stating this idea. I am merely suggesting that the circumstances in which such rights would be GRANTED need to be changed. You have been mistaken. :Second, I would argue that some rights are privileges, or something that must be earned. Not all rights are given to :you at birth. E.g. life Some rights are priviliges indeed. Thus, the circumstances in which we can aquire such privilges should be equal. We all get a chance at these privilages. "All men are created equal." This quote is contradicted when we do not allow equal means to equal privilages. :In the case of a natural born citizen vs. any other person, the natural born citizen would most likely have no other :loyalties to a foreign sovereign state. The natural born citizen has been a US citizen for his/her whole life, whereas a :citizen that came from another country has had past loyalties, not to the US. Can we not have such loyalities to other foreign nations and still be highly qualified for Presidency? Relations with other nations have no effect on a persons ability to run a country. :Basically the natural born citizen is the most appropriate pick to fill the top office in dealing with the contractual duties :of the US (People --> Government --> People Can you tell me reasons why this is so? :The natural born citizen has no other sovereign loyalties and thus has a clear contractual duty with only the US. Not ONE person has suggested or insinuated that one who has had other soveriegn loyalties can NOT have clear contractual duties to only with the U.S. And who are we to assume that they have even had other sovereign loyalties. They could have moved here when they were young children or babies. We need to judge someones ability for Presidency not on their birth location which they had NO control over.

Politics

Amend-Article-2-Section-1-of-the-Consitution/1/

Form of The Debate: Round One will be the acceptance of the debate and explanation of your position as well as some introductions. Round Two will be centered around stating facts that would support your statement. Round Three will be responding to your opponent's facts. Round Four will be rebuttals of statements in Round Tree. Finally, Round Five will be closing statements and any other things you may want to address. This is a serious topic, so I'd like to keep everything respectful. Introduction: I think that we in fact do not live in a rape culture as many feminists or SJW's like to state. I'd also like to state that this is an ideal made up by progressive individuals searching for a movement to fight for. Thank you, and I look forward to the debate.

MattOptimus

Form of The Debate: Round One will be the acceptance of the debate and explanation of your position as well as some introductions. Round Two will be centered around stating facts that would support your statement. Round Three will be responding to your opponent's facts. Round Four will be rebuttals of statements in Round Tree. Finally, Round Five will be closing statements and any other things you may want to address. This is a serious topic, so I'd like to keep everything respectful. Introduction: I think that we in fact do not live in a rape culture as many feminists or SJW's like to state. I'd also like to state that this is an ideal made up by progressive individuals searching for a movement to fight for. Thank you, and I look forward to the debate.

Society

America-Is-A-Rape-Culture/1/

Thanks a lot for accepting the debate. I think I should also define culture, just to get that out of the way. The definition of "Culture" is a refined understanding or appreciation of this. I argue that if something is deemed not socially accepted (ie can't do or say something without being ridiculed by the majority of people for saying or doing that thing) then it isn't culture. Now since I'm attempting to prove a negative I'll have to use facts that go against my argument that I'll refute. According to Marshal University, here are examples of Rape Culture. I've also excluded a few points made by the website that were centered around stereotypes of women and men, and since stereotypes of men and women are so blatantly incorrect (seeing as the majority of humans fall into those two categories) they wouldn't make much of a difference in culture. It should be also said that the same article is quoted saying " Most women and girls live in fear of rape. Men, in general, do not. That's how rape functions as a powerful means by which the whole female population is held in a subordinate position to the whole male population, even though many men don't rape, and many women are never victims of rape." This never references male, transgender, or agender victims of sexual violence since apparently none of those individuals should worry about it. My commentary will be in italics. Blaming the victim ("She asked for it!") While blaming the victim is something that encourages rape and puts down the victim, people ridicule those that actually say things like that. Trivializing sexual assault ("Boys will be boys!") Same as above. It is a negative thing, but people that trivialize sexual assault are always labeled as regressive and idiotic. Sexually explicit jokes This one is just absurd. While jokes that actually trivialize rape ("It's not rape if you yell surprise" "rape is a struggle snuggle" etc) are actually pretty messed up and not funny, sexually explicit jokes that never reference a lack of consent wouldn't ever encourage sexual violence. I'd even say the jokes about rape wouldn't encourage rape either. More on that later. Tolerance of sexual harassment Again, this isn't something socially accepted and is also overly general. Since sexual harassment is illegal and can ruin a perpetrator's personal life as well as their career (see Sam Pepper, Bill Cosby, R. Kelly) Inflating false rape report statistics How this promotes rape, I have no idea. While inflating statistics is dishonest and terrible thing to do, I don't see how this could encourage sexual violence. Publicly scrutinizing a victim's dress, mental state, motives, and history Once again, this isn't something that's socially accepted. The majority of people that hear someone saying that the victim's clothing meant they were asking for it would refute it, since it's idiotic reasoning. Gratuitous gendered violence in movies and television I'm assuming this means violence against women in movies and television. Refusing to take rape accusations seriously This one is absurd, since rape accusations are portrayed in the media as rape prosecutions. Many people have been accused and found innocent, yet their lives are ruined by the ordeal. HG Legal Resources is quoted saying " ...the consequences of a false report of rape can be devastating to the life of the one accused. Often, the mere suggestion that a person has done something is enough to convict them in the court of public opinion. With websites that feature arrest mug shots and identify charges, there is no way for a wrongfully accused person to protect their reputation. This can have life changing effects, lead to loss of employment opportunities, public ridicule, and emotional harm." How are rape accusations not taken seriously in our culture if that's what happens to someone that's accused of rape and found innocent? Assuming only promiscuous women get raped Again, I fail to see how this could possibly be connected to encouragement of rape. It's indeed a misconception of rape, but not one that would make the crime seem any more appealing. Assuming that men don't get raped or that only "weak" men get raped I find it interesting that they would include this, since earlier they said rape culture affected women substantially more than men. This is another legitimate point, but I don't see how this encourages the crime of rape or sexual harassment. Teaching women to avoid getting raped instead of teaching men not to rape This is the most absurd of all the claims made, since rape is obviously not accepted in any way. It's illegal! Not only that, but it's one of the most serious crimes someone can commit! Also, education isn't going to stop rape. If someone is the type of individual that would rape another person then they most likely aren't reasonable or empathetic. Sadly, the Marshal University article was the only detailed description of rape culture that was a trustworthy website, not a Tumblr blog. RAINN Article I used to fact check the Marshal University Article: <URL>... Marshal University article: <URL>... HG Legal Resources article I quoted: <URL>...

MattOptimus

Thanks a lot for accepting the debate. I think I should also define culture, just to get that out of the way. The definition of "Culture" is a refined understanding or appreciation of this. I argue that if something is deemed not socially accepted (ie can't do or say something without being ridiculed by the majority of people for saying or doing that thing) then it isn't culture. Now since I'm attempting to prove a negative I'll have to use facts that go against my argument that I'll refute. According to Marshal University, here are examples of Rape Culture. I've also excluded a few points made by the website that were centered around stereotypes of women and men, and since stereotypes of men and women are so blatantly incorrect (seeing as the majority of humans fall into those two categories) they wouldn't make much of a difference in culture. It should be also said that the same article is quoted saying " Most women and girls live in fear of rape. Men, in general, do not. That’s how rape functions as a powerful means by which the whole female population is held in a subordinate position to the whole male population, even though many men don’t rape, and many women are never victims of rape." This never references male, transgender, or agender victims of sexual violence since apparently none of those individuals should worry about it. My commentary will be in italics. Blaming the victim (“She asked for it!”) While blaming the victim is something that encourages rape and puts down the victim, people ridicule those that actually say things like that. Trivializing sexual assault (“Boys will be boys!") Same as above. It is a negative thing, but people that trivialize sexual assault are always labeled as regressive and idiotic. Sexually explicit jokes This one is just absurd. While jokes that actually trivialize rape ("It's not rape if you yell surprise" "rape is a struggle snuggle" etc) are actually pretty messed up and not funny, sexually explicit jokes that never reference a lack of consent wouldn't ever encourage sexual violence. I'd even say the jokes about rape wouldn't encourage rape either. More on that later. Tolerance of sexual harassment Again, this isn't something socially accepted and is also overly general. Since sexual harassment is illegal and can ruin a perpetrator's personal life as well as their career (see Sam Pepper, Bill Cosby, R. Kelly) Inflating false rape report statistics How this promotes rape, I have no idea. While inflating statistics is dishonest and terrible thing to do, I don't see how this could encourage sexual violence. Publicly scrutinizing a victim’s dress, mental state, motives, and history Once again, this isn't something that's socially accepted. The majority of people that hear someone saying that the victim's clothing meant they were asking for it would refute it, since it's idiotic reasoning. Gratuitous gendered violence in movies and television I'm assuming this means violence against women in movies and television. Refusing to take rape accusations seriously This one is absurd, since rape accusations are portrayed in the media as rape prosecutions. Many people have been accused and found innocent, yet their lives are ruined by the ordeal. HG Legal Resources is quoted saying " ...the consequences of a false report of rape can be devastating to the life of the one accused. Often, the mere suggestion that a person has done something is enough to convict them in the court of public opinion. With websites that feature arrest mug shots and identify charges, there is no way for a wrongfully accused person to protect their reputation. This can have life changing effects, lead to loss of employment opportunities, public ridicule, and emotional harm." How are rape accusations not taken seriously in our culture if that's what happens to someone that's accused of rape and found innocent? Assuming only promiscuous women get raped Again, I fail to see how this could possibly be connected to encouragement of rape. It's indeed a misconception of rape, but not one that would make the crime seem any more appealing. Assuming that men don’t get raped or that only “weak” men get raped I find it interesting that they would include this, since earlier they said rape culture affected women substantially more than men. This is another legitimate point, but I don't see how this encourages the crime of rape or sexual harassment. Teaching women to avoid getting raped instead of teaching men not to rape This is the most absurd of all the claims made, since rape is obviously not accepted in any way. It's illegal! Not only that, but it's one of the most serious crimes someone can commit! Also, education isn't going to stop rape. If someone is the type of individual that would rape another person then they most likely aren't reasonable or empathetic. Sadly, the Marshal University article was the only detailed description of rape culture that was a trustworthy website, not a Tumblr blog. RAINN Article I used to fact check the Marshal University Article: https://rainn.org... Marshal University article: http://www.marshall.edu... HG Legal Resources article I quoted: http://www.hg.org...

Society

America-Is-A-Rape-Culture/1/

I accept the debate. Wikipedia's page on the subject defines Rape Culture as: "a setting in which rape is pervasive and normalized due to societal attitudes about gender and sexuality.[sic]" Personally, I think Rape Culture is a load of bunk. However, just for fun, I will present an argument that America indeed meets the above definition of a Rape Culture. We now return to Con, so they can present their case.

SM2

I accept the debate. Wikipedia's page on the subject defines Rape Culture as: "a setting in which rape is pervasive and normalized due to societal attitudes about gender and sexuality.[sic]" Personally, I think Rape Culture is a load of bunk. However, just for fun, I will present an argument that America indeed meets the above definition of a Rape Culture. We now return to Con, so they can present their case.

Society

America-Is-A-Rape-Culture/1/

Con has made some brilliant points, which I am now going to tear down. I will also consider their addendum in the comments section, and I ask the voters to do the same. There's a principle called "Hanlon's Razor", which states: "Never assume malice until you've ruled out incompetence." Most arguments in favour of "Rape Culture" rest on the assumption that RC is a malicious system, designed to oppress women and bolster men. Con has made a convincing case for why this is not so, but has failed (just like most RC activists) to consider incompetence as a cause. Incompetence and indifference can cause just as much harm as malice. Look at the Holocaust: most Germans weren't evil people, but their inaction allowed the Nazi party to commit atrocities. My counter-argument to Con's points is that RC exists, not because people want it to, but because they don't do enough to stamp it out. 1. Blaming the victim. People take offence when it's obvious, but they often don't pick up on subtle victim blaming. For example, a few months ago in Australia (I know this debate is about the US, but I'm less familiar with US news, and this example is just to illustrate what I mean), a teenage girl was raped by three guys on her way home from school. The mayor of the city said something to the effect of, "See? This is what I'm talking about. Teenage girls shouldn't walk home alone." While his comment was no doubt well-meaning, and teenage girls should absolutely take all precautions possible, think about it from the victim's point of view. She hears that, and she probably feels like sh*t. Maybe she's even blaming herself for the assault, thinking, "If only I'd not walked home alone." This is outrageous, since the rape was not her fault. Victim-blaming isn't just about what you say, but also how and when you say it, and how it could misinterpreted. 2. Trivializing sexual assault. This may be frowned upon by society as a whole, but there are large, mostly online, groups within society that engage in this behaviour all too frequently. Again, the problem is not that society condones it, but that society doesn't stamp it out. 3. Sexually explicit jokes. Con is right. There is no proof that rape jokes lead to rape. However, like all racist/sexist humour, they should be used with extreme caution. 4. Tolerance of sexual harassment. Again, people tend to react to the obvious and ignore the subtle. Bill Cosby is demonized now, but he got away with his actions for decades. 5. Inflating false rape report statistics. The notion that "[all] women lie about being raped" is often used to reinforce misogynistic viewpoints. While misogyny doesn't always lead to rape, it can be a contributing factor. 6. Publicly scrutinizing a victim"s dress, mental state, motives, and history. It's increasingly less accepted, but it still happens far too often. 7. Gratuitous gendered violence in movies and television. Con is right, this one is stupid. 8. Refusing to take rape accusations seriously. While this probably does happen on a small scale, it'd be impossible for me to prove/disprove with the tools at my disposal. 9. Assuming only promiscuous women get raped. "If [promiscuous women] get raped, then it's okay to rape [promiscuous women]." OR "Don't dress like a [promiscuous women], or you'll get raped." Both are horrible and fallacious lines of reasoning, but they persist nevertheless. It's not socially acceptable to say it, but a lot of people still think it. 10. Assuming that men don"t get raped or that only "weak" men get raped. Men are less likely to be raped than women, because men are bigger than women, men are less likely to say "no" to a woman, and most male rapists are straight. 11. Teaching women to avoid getting raped instead of teaching men not to rape. Feminists present this in a fallacious way, but ideally we'd teach both. To reiterate my previous point: rape culture doesn't have to be deliberately encouraged or accepted in order to be "pervasive and normalized", it just has to be ignored and misrepresented. RC activists are probably just as guilty of misrepresentation as anybody else. While I don't believe the picture of Rape Culture that feminists paint, and I really hate the philosophy because it's just inflammatory, there is no denying that rape is a serious problem and could be addressed better. We now return to Con.

SM2

Con has made some brilliant points, which I am now going to tear down. I will also consider their addendum in the comments section, and I ask the voters to do the same. There's a principle called "Hanlon's Razor", which states: "Never assume malice until you've ruled out incompetence." Most arguments in favour of "Rape Culture" rest on the assumption that RC is a malicious system, designed to oppress women and bolster men. Con has made a convincing case for why this is not so, but has failed (just like most RC activists) to consider incompetence as a cause. Incompetence and indifference can cause just as much harm as malice. Look at the Holocaust: most Germans weren't evil people, but their inaction allowed the Nazi party to commit atrocities. My counter-argument to Con's points is that RC exists, not because people want it to, but because they don't do enough to stamp it out. 1. Blaming the victim. People take offence when it's obvious, but they often don't pick up on subtle victim blaming. For example, a few months ago in Australia (I know this debate is about the US, but I'm less familiar with US news, and this example is just to illustrate what I mean), a teenage girl was raped by three guys on her way home from school. The mayor of the city said something to the effect of, "See? This is what I'm talking about. Teenage girls shouldn't walk home alone." While his comment was no doubt well-meaning, and teenage girls should absolutely take all precautions possible, think about it from the victim's point of view. She hears that, and she probably feels like sh*t. Maybe she's even blaming herself for the assault, thinking, "If only I'd not walked home alone." This is outrageous, since the rape was not her fault. Victim-blaming isn't just about what you say, but also how and when you say it, and how it could misinterpreted. 2. Trivializing sexual assault. This may be frowned upon by society as a whole, but there are large, mostly online, groups within society that engage in this behaviour all too frequently. Again, the problem is not that society condones it, but that society doesn't stamp it out. 3. Sexually explicit jokes. Con is right. There is no proof that rape jokes lead to rape. However, like all racist/sexist humour, they should be used with extreme caution. 4. Tolerance of sexual harassment. Again, people tend to react to the obvious and ignore the subtle. Bill Cosby is demonized now, but he got away with his actions for decades. 5. Inflating false rape report statistics. The notion that "[all] women lie about being raped" is often used to reinforce misogynistic viewpoints. While misogyny doesn't always lead to rape, it can be a contributing factor. 6. Publicly scrutinizing a victim"s dress, mental state, motives, and history. It's increasingly less accepted, but it still happens far too often. 7. Gratuitous gendered violence in movies and television. Con is right, this one is stupid. 8. Refusing to take rape accusations seriously. While this probably does happen on a small scale, it'd be impossible for me to prove/disprove with the tools at my disposal. 9. Assuming only promiscuous women get raped. "If [promiscuous women] get raped, then it's okay to rape [promiscuous women]." OR "Don't dress like a [promiscuous women], or you'll get raped." Both are horrible and fallacious lines of reasoning, but they persist nevertheless. It's not socially acceptable to say it, but a lot of people still think it. 10. Assuming that men don"t get raped or that only "weak" men get raped. Men are less likely to be raped than women, because men are bigger than women, men are less likely to say "no" to a woman, and most male rapists are straight. 11. Teaching women to avoid getting raped instead of teaching men not to rape. Feminists present this in a fallacious way, but ideally we'd teach both. To reiterate my previous point: rape culture doesn't have to be deliberately encouraged or accepted in order to be "pervasive and normalized", it just has to be ignored and misrepresented. RC activists are probably just as guilty of misrepresentation as anybody else. While I don't believe the picture of Rape Culture that feminists paint, and I really hate the philosophy because it's just inflammatory, there is no denying that rape is a serious problem and could be addressed better. We now return to Con.

Society

America-Is-A-Rape-Culture/1/

Con has forfeited the round.

SM2

Con has forfeited the round.

Society

America-Is-A-Rape-Culture/1/

Another forfeit.

SM2

Another forfeit.

Society

America-Is-A-Rape-Culture/1/

Opponent forfeits.

SM2

Opponent forfeits.

Society

America-Is-A-Rape-Culture/1/

Since Obama was re-elected, America (once a great country) won't last long. The national debt is too high, he's spending too much money, and, mind you, it's not being spent on NASA. The countries that we are in debt with have to come for their money some day. Who knows how prepared we will be.

Minimack

Since Obama was re-elected, America (once a great country) won't last long. The national debt is too high, he's spending too much money, and, mind you, it's not being spent on NASA. The countries that we are in debt with have to come for their money some day. Who knows how prepared we will be.

Politics

America-Is-Doomed-Since-Obamas-Back/1/

First I would like to start out by saying, I should have re-worded the topic. I should have said: America is in trouble since Obama's back. I see that using the word 'Doomed' isn't the right fit. Now for my argument. Four years ago, before Obama was elected, the national debt was high enough that each person (men women and children) wold have had to pay only about $20'000 to get out of our 'hole'. Now (after four years of President Obama) that has nearly doubled. Making it $40'000 that each American would have to pay to get us out. My Question to you is, In four years will it be better? Will the debt be gone? Or will it have doubled again? How long until we, possibly, work for e other country? I have a friend who told me that the national debt is not Obama's fault, but it's the governments. No it is not. It is the president's fault. The government is at part of the blame her, but 9/10 of that blame goes to the Commander in Chief.

Minimack

First I would like to start out by saying, I should have re-worded the topic. I should have said: America is in trouble since Obama's back. I see that using the word 'Doomed' isn't the right fit. Now for my argument. Four years ago, before Obama was elected, the national debt was high enough that each person (men women and children) wold have had to pay only about $20'000 to get out of our 'hole'. Now (after four years of President Obama) that has nearly doubled. Making it $40'000 that each American would have to pay to get us out. My Question to you is, In four years will it be better? Will the debt be gone? Or will it have doubled again? How long until we, possibly, work for e other country? I have a friend who told me that the national debt is not Obama's fault, but it's the governments. No it is not. It is the president's fault. The government is at part of the blame her, but 9/10 of that blame goes to the Commander in Chief.

Politics

America-Is-Doomed-Since-Obamas-Back/1/

I can see waiting for a counter argument is no use. This has been a good debate so far... I guess. My argument has been posted.

Minimack

I can see waiting for a counter argument is no use. This has been a good debate so far... I guess. My argument has been posted.

Politics

America-Is-Doomed-Since-Obamas-Back/1/

Final argument. My sources: the news. I am using this argument to state that I will wait for your reply on my first one. I will not post another argument to have you say its 'empty' or whatever. I don't use the internet for my sources, I watch the news. Counter argument?

Minimack

Final argument. My sources: the news. I am using this argument to state that I will wait for your reply on my first one. I will not post another argument to have you say its 'empty' or whatever. I don't use the internet for my sources, I watch the news. Counter argument?

Politics

America-Is-Doomed-Since-Obamas-Back/1/

First I would like to start out by saying, I should have re-worded the topic. I should have said: America is in trouble since Obama's back. I see that using the word 'Doomed' isn't the right fit. Now for my argument. Four years ago, before Obama was elected, the national debt was high enough that each person (men women and children) wold have had to pay only about $20'000 to get out of our 'hole'. Now (after four years of President Obama) that has nearly doubled. Making it $40'000 that each American would have to pay to get us out. My Question to you is, In four years will it be better? Will the debt be gone? Or will it have doubled again? How long until we, possibly, work for e other country? I have a friend who told me that the national debt is not Obama's fault, but it's the governments. No it is not. It is the president's fault. The government is at part of the blame her, but 9/10 of that blame goes to the Commander in Chief. You are making bare assertions with no evidence, sources, proof, verifications, warrants, or implications, I will not be able to successfully respond to your arguments until they have ground, and of course assertions without proof are groundless.

emospongebob527

First I would like to start out by saying, I should have re-worded the topic. I should have said: America is in trouble since Obama's back. I see that using the word 'Doomed' isn't the right fit. Now for my argument. Four years ago, before Obama was elected, the national debt was high enough that each person (men women and children) wold have had to pay only about $20'000 to get out of our 'hole'. Now (after four years of President Obama) that has nearly doubled. Making it $40'000 that each American would have to pay to get us out. My Question to you is, In four years will it be better? Will the debt be gone? Or will it have doubled again? How long until we, possibly, work for e other country? I have a friend who told me that the national debt is not Obama's fault, but it's the governments. No it is not. It is the president's fault. The government is at part of the blame her, but 9/10 of that blame goes to the Commander in Chief. You are making bare assertions with no evidence, sources, proof, verifications, warrants, or implications, I will not be able to successfully respond to your arguments until they have ground, and of course assertions without proof are groundless.

Politics

America-Is-Doomed-Since-Obamas-Back/1/

I'd be a Libertarian if they believed in government grants for college, increasing the minimum wage, labor unions, and Universal Healthcare, or Single Payer Healthcare (Socialized Medicine if you want to you scary buzz words). For the sake of debate I'll only focus on healthcare. They claim they only believe in the Bills of Rights and the Constitution, so let me recite part of the Preamble to the Constitution; "WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Furthermore in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution refers to the "general welfare" thus: "The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . ." So we have taxes for our Military Defenses, but what about our Modern Day health concerns? What about those defenses? It seems to me that the easiest way to insure Tranquility and to form a more perfect Union, would be to make a healthier Union. Listen, no matter how Conservative one is one would argue through and through, until they're blue in the face if America deregulated our Fire Fighters, Police, Libraries, Post Offices, and Public Schools. All of which was not listed in the Bill of Rights, but all of which is federally funded and helps to make a more perfect Union. So why not Healthcare? Private Healthcare is a ponzi scheme, were only the healthy and wealthy can afford to be seen by a Doctor, (at least one that will give you the healthcare you rightfully deserve), but instead our healthcare system is based on money. Money that Doctors can get from you or your insurance, and giving you only what is provided by your private Insurance, not necessarily what you need to survive. As we approach financial cliff after financial cliff, and so on, I am reminded that health care, and the term "pre-existing condition" were a large chunk of my own financial woes. My wife has a terminal illness and we've sold her family house for pennies on the dollar due to the debt that her ailments generate. Nowadays she's too disillusioned to see the doctors, and frankly I don't blame her. Conservatives will say survival of the fittest. Which is a bastardization of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. According to Darwin survival doesn't go to the fittest, but to the species that's willing to adapt to change. In this sense of the word conservatives are a doomed species. Doomed by their ostrich in the sand thinking. By burying their heads in the sand and hoping for the best they accomplish nothing. Which is what they want to do to healthcare. Nothing. No regulations which would only led to Doctors, the healthcare industry, and the pharmaceutical industry charge what ever they want for the cost of their services. The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 was signed into law by President George W. Bush has highlighted what's wrong with the conservative and Republican thinking, when it comes to healthcare. It restricted folks on prescription plans to just a networks of providers, thus severely limiting their medical options. It restricted prescription drug choices, by allowing HMO's to create more formulary plans, and care other than emergency care was restricted to a particular region. Lately, the Republicans in Congress are trying to repeal Obamacare for the 40th time. While Obamacare isn't the Universal Healthcare I dream of one cannot convince the conservatives of this. Their panic reminds me of Chicken Little warning everyone on the farm that 'the sky is falling', which it's not. The sky is very much there, and is still made up of the private healthcare providers that make us all put a price tag on our bodies. President Obama's greatest problem with healthcare is that he showed up to this game of strip poker half naked. The public option being the clothes that he left behind. As Bill Cosby said, "I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." That's what President Obama did with his healthcare plan. Now, it will be treated like automotive insurance, as you'll receive a fine for not having it. Democrats claim that costs will be made lower, but I'll believe it when I see it. We're the only western nation with no form of free healthcare. On average the poorest Canadian lives 3 years longer then the richest American. In the United Kingdom that number grows to about 5-7 years longer. In both nations even the conservatives wouldn't take their national health systems off the table, as healthcare (like police, firefighters, schools, libraries, and the post office) are viewed as basic human rights, and as well they should be. Conservatives claim that it would be a waste of spending to provide healthcare to everyone, (both rich and poor). However, I feel that the trillions wasted in failed wars, (including the failed drug war) are the wasteful spending, along with the alphabet soup of federal police agencies that plague our civil liberties. Admitted we need federal police agencies, but why do we need more than a dozen, when other western nations need at most two? I guess the answer would be checks and balances, but if that's the case why do we need more than three? In closing we need healthcare for all, and there are numerous ways to make it as to not raise taxes to the general public. One would be legalization and taxation of marijuana. This would not raise conservatives taxes at all... that is permitted he or she isn't going to be purchasing any cannabis. In addition to this shutting down a hand full of overseas military bases, and dismantling the ATF and DEA couldn't hurt either.

clockworkmechanicalman

I'd be a Libertarian if they believed in government grants for college, increasing the minimum wage, labor unions, and Universal Healthcare, or Single Payer Healthcare (Socialized Medicine if you want to you scary buzz words). For the sake of debate I'll only focus on healthcare. They claim they only believe in the Bills of Rights and the Constitution, so let me recite part of the Preamble to the Constitution; "WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Furthermore in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution refers to the "general welfare" thus: "The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . ." So we have taxes for our Military Defenses, but what about our Modern Day health concerns? What about those defenses? It seems to me that the easiest way to insure Tranquility and to form a more perfect Union, would be to make a healthier Union. Listen, no matter how Conservative one is one would argue through and through, until they're blue in the face if America deregulated our Fire Fighters, Police, Libraries, Post Offices, and Public Schools. All of which was not listed in the Bill of Rights, but all of which is federally funded and helps to make a more perfect Union. So why not Healthcare? Private Healthcare is a ponzi scheme, were only the healthy and wealthy can afford to be seen by a Doctor, (at least one that will give you the healthcare you rightfully deserve), but instead our healthcare system is based on money. Money that Doctors can get from you or your insurance, and giving you only what is provided by your private Insurance, not necessarily what you need to survive. As we approach financial cliff after financial cliff, and so on, I am reminded that health care, and the term "pre-existing condition" were a large chunk of my own financial woes. My wife has a terminal illness and we've sold her family house for pennies on the dollar due to the debt that her ailments generate. Nowadays she's too disillusioned to see the doctors, and frankly I don't blame her. Conservatives will say survival of the fittest. Which is a bastardization of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. According to Darwin survival doesn't go to the fittest, but to the species that's willing to adapt to change. In this sense of the word conservatives are a doomed species. Doomed by their ostrich in the sand thinking. By burying their heads in the sand and hoping for the best they accomplish nothing. Which is what they want to do to healthcare. Nothing. No regulations which would only led to Doctors, the healthcare industry, and the pharmaceutical industry charge what ever they want for the cost of their services. The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 was signed into law by President George W. Bush has highlighted what's wrong with the conservative and Republican thinking, when it comes to healthcare. It restricted folks on prescription plans to just a networks of providers, thus severely limiting their medical options. It restricted prescription drug choices, by allowing HMO's to create more formulary plans, and care other than emergency care was restricted to a particular region. Lately, the Republicans in Congress are trying to repeal Obamacare for the 40th time. While Obamacare isn't the Universal Healthcare I dream of one cannot convince the conservatives of this. Their panic reminds me of Chicken Little warning everyone on the farm that 'the sky is falling', which it's not. The sky is very much there, and is still made up of the private healthcare providers that make us all put a price tag on our bodies. President Obama's greatest problem with healthcare is that he showed up to this game of strip poker half naked. The public option being the clothes that he left behind. As Bill Cosby said, "I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." That's what President Obama did with his healthcare plan. Now, it will be treated like automotive insurance, as you'll receive a fine for not having it. Democrats claim that costs will be made lower, but I'll believe it when I see it. We're the only western nation with no form of free healthcare. On average the poorest Canadian lives 3 years longer then the richest American. In the United Kingdom that number grows to about 5-7 years longer. In both nations even the conservatives wouldn't take their national health systems off the table, as healthcare (like police, firefighters, schools, libraries, and the post office) are viewed as basic human rights, and as well they should be. Conservatives claim that it would be a waste of spending to provide healthcare to everyone, (both rich and poor). However, I feel that the trillions wasted in failed wars, (including the failed drug war) are the wasteful spending, along with the alphabet soup of federal police agencies that plague our civil liberties. Admitted we need federal police agencies, but why do we need more than a dozen, when other western nations need at most two? I guess the answer would be checks and balances, but if that's the case why do we need more than three? In closing we need healthcare for all, and there are numerous ways to make it as to not raise taxes to the general public. One would be legalization and taxation of marijuana. This would not raise conservatives taxes at all... that is permitted he or she isn't going to be purchasing any cannabis. In addition to this shutting down a hand full of overseas military bases, and dismantling the ATF and DEA couldn't hurt either.

Politics

America-Should-have-Single-Payer-Healthcare/1/

RESOLUTION America is now, and has historically been, imperialist. RULES Acceptance of rules/definitions and any relevant clarifications will be offered in Round 1. Arguments will continue from there. Excessive use of semantics is forfeiture, I'll let the readers decide what is excessive. CLARIFICATIONS <URL>... Imperialism is "the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence" America refers to the United States of America from the beginnings of the American Revolution to the present day. It refers to the nation as a whole, including culture, government, and/or people. By historically I mean how the U.S. has been during this time. I look forward to the debate.

Yvette

RESOLUTION America is now, and has historically been, imperialist. RULES Acceptance of rules/definitions and any relevant clarifications will be offered in Round 1. Arguments will continue from there. Excessive use of semantics is forfeiture, I'll let the readers decide what is excessive. CLARIFICATIONS http://www.merriam-webster.com... Imperialism is "the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence" America refers to the United States of America from the beginnings of the American Revolution to the present day. It refers to the nation as a whole, including culture, government, and/or people. By historically I mean how the U.S. has been during this time. I look forward to the debate.

Politics

America-is-now-and-has-historically-been-imperialist./1/

I thank my opponent for taking this debate. However, he has already admitted that, according to the definition of imperialism America is in fact an imperialist nation, he charges that America isn't enough of an imperialist nation to be called imperialist compared to more notorious nations. His admittance: "I believe that America has adopted a foreign national policy stance that can be summarized as "interventionist." I believe that America does attempt to coerce other nations in some regards, and that in many instances it could reasonably be construed as detrimental." All of this makes America fit the definition of imperialist. Interventionism, especially, is a government policy of exerting influence over things not under it's direct control. However, I intend to meet my opponent's challenge and not only point out his inadvertent forfeiture but to actually prove that America is now, and has historically been, imperialist. Read on. My opponent will have to maintain that the U.S. has never expanded its territories, let alone attempted to expand it's influence, to win this debate. Whether any nation can be called imperialist is irrelevant. Any human can be called mortal, this hardly makes the label untrue. Finally, whether any imperialist action is justified is entirely irrelevant. There is no moral judgment inherent in the term. I'll also note that my opponent failed to follow the rules put forward in Round 1 and resorted to ad-hominem before the debate even began. RESPONSES My opponent attempts to show that America is not imperialist by saying that anti-imperialism has always been a strong movement in the U.S. This is true, however, the definition judges by actions, not words and especially not words of half of a nation. Hypocrisy is not unheard of, especially in this nation, and especially when one considers our long history of "freedom" and who has been excluded from it. I will show that the policies and actions of America have been imperialist. My opponent also claims that American imperialism must be as bad as Nazism to count. This is ridiculous and arbitrary. The French, British, Spanish and even the Netherlands have all been successful imperialists to one degree or another, indisputably. All that is required for America to be imperialist is for it to fit the definition. INTRODUCTION TO US IMPERIALISM From it's very beginnings, before the U.S. was even severed from British control, American settlers pushed for direct territorial acquisitions. Once a nation, Americans began a long and slow push for land justified by their "Divine Mandate" not only westward but in the south and north as well. Its first acquisition was in 1783, the last in 1970. [1] In addition, the U.S. has attempted to exert control over other areas of the world politically and militarily. ORIGINS In fact, this was a factor in strained British-American and Indian-American relations. Early American settlers were mostly tobacco farmers, requiring more land for more profits, so they pushed into Indian territory, one example being Bacon's Rebellion. [2] EARLY IMPERIALISM Once the nation was solidified, the infamous march westward began, as the new nation slowly took Indian territory. Less known is the expansion to the south and north. For example, in the Mexican-American War, the U.S. took almost half of all Mexican territory, creating what is now the American Southwest. [3][4] It also purchased Alaska and continued to expand west, taking land from natives. Later, the American-Spanish War would mark the beginning of overseas expansion. GLOBAL CONFLICTS While the U.S. did not initially get involved militarily in WWI, it exerted its influence by supporting those already involved. They also attempted to impose their influence during the Russian Revolution. [5] And early on in WWII, America attempted to influence events by quietly providing support to its allies. The Cold War, of course, marks a major and long-term imperialist war by the U.S., as the entire point of the Cold War was influence and power. The U.S. exerted control via aid (long one of it's favorite tactics) and military support/intervention, as well as through the threat of nuclear war. [6] From there, you have numerous instances of America gaining and exerting political control, including: the Korean War (supporting pro-America allies), the Lebanon Crisis (supporting pro-America forces), and the Vietnam War (supporting pro-American forces). [7] MODERN IMPERIALISM Modern U.S. imperialism has continued its tactics of indirect control and small military intervention, either through support or direct conflict. [8][9][13][14] It has quietly supported foreign regimes whose policies are in its favor, and deposed those which are not. [10][11] In addition to these smaller, lesser-known acts of intervention and control, the recent "War on Terrorism" is a blatant and obvious show of interventionism. In addition to the war generally being interventionist, America has attempted to push pro-American Western ideals, forms of government, and even governments itself on affected countries. Currently, the departments of foreign affairs, including the Secretary of State admits, unknowingly, that it is imperialist. It's self-admitted policy is one of exerting influence for noble goals, and though it's doubtful whether the stated reasons are true, it doesn't matter. [12] The goal of American foreign policy is stated as working on "export controls, including nonproliferation of nuclear technology and nuclear hardware; measures to foster commercial intercourse with foreign nations and to safeguard American business abroad; International commodity agreements; international education; and protection of American citizens abroad and expatriation". Imperialism is "the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence". CONCLUSION America has long made territory acquisitions. It has long attempted to influence and control other areas more directly. Even today, foreign policy is a major factor in American politics and even a factor in voters' minds. Resolution affirmed: America is and has historically been imperialist. SOURCES If the sources do not publish correctly, which occasionally happens, I will post a copy in the Comments section. 1. <URL>... 2. <URL>... 3. <URL>... 4. <URL>... 5. <URL>... 6. <URL>... 7. <URL>... 8. <URL>... 9. <URL>... 10. <URL>... 11. <URL>... 12. <URL>... 13. <URL>... 14. <URL>...

Yvette

I thank my opponent for taking this debate. However, he has already admitted that, according to the definition of imperialism America is in fact an imperialist nation, he charges that America isn't enough of an imperialist nation to be called imperialist compared to more notorious nations. His admittance: "I believe that America has adopted a foreign national policy stance that can be summarized as "interventionist." I believe that America does attempt to coerce other nations in some regards, and that in many instances it could reasonably be construed as detrimental." All of this makes America fit the definition of imperialist. Interventionism, especially, is a government policy of exerting influence over things not under it's direct control. However, I intend to meet my opponent's challenge and not only point out his inadvertent forfeiture but to actually prove that America is now, and has historically been, imperialist. Read on. My opponent will have to maintain that the U.S. has never expanded its territories, let alone attempted to expand it's influence, to win this debate. Whether any nation can be called imperialist is irrelevant. Any human can be called mortal, this hardly makes the label untrue. Finally, whether any imperialist action is justified is entirely irrelevant. There is no moral judgment inherent in the term. I'll also note that my opponent failed to follow the rules put forward in Round 1 and resorted to ad-hominem before the debate even began. RESPONSES My opponent attempts to show that America is not imperialist by saying that anti-imperialism has always been a strong movement in the U.S. This is true, however, the definition judges by actions, not words and especially not words of half of a nation. Hypocrisy is not unheard of, especially in this nation, and especially when one considers our long history of "freedom" and who has been excluded from it. I will show that the policies and actions of America have been imperialist. My opponent also claims that American imperialism must be as bad as Nazism to count. This is ridiculous and arbitrary. The French, British, Spanish and even the Netherlands have all been successful imperialists to one degree or another, indisputably. All that is required for America to be imperialist is for it to fit the definition. INTRODUCTION TO US IMPERIALISM From it's very beginnings, before the U.S. was even severed from British control, American settlers pushed for direct territorial acquisitions. Once a nation, Americans began a long and slow push for land justified by their "Divine Mandate" not only westward but in the south and north as well. Its first acquisition was in 1783, the last in 1970. [1] In addition, the U.S. has attempted to exert control over other areas of the world politically and militarily. ORIGINS In fact, this was a factor in strained British-American and Indian-American relations. Early American settlers were mostly tobacco farmers, requiring more land for more profits, so they pushed into Indian territory, one example being Bacon's Rebellion. [2] EARLY IMPERIALISM Once the nation was solidified, the infamous march westward began, as the new nation slowly took Indian territory. Less known is the expansion to the south and north. For example, in the Mexican-American War, the U.S. took almost half of all Mexican territory, creating what is now the American Southwest. [3][4] It also purchased Alaska and continued to expand west, taking land from natives. Later, the American-Spanish War would mark the beginning of overseas expansion. GLOBAL CONFLICTS While the U.S. did not initially get involved militarily in WWI, it exerted its influence by supporting those already involved. They also attempted to impose their influence during the Russian Revolution. [5] And early on in WWII, America attempted to influence events by quietly providing support to its allies. The Cold War, of course, marks a major and long-term imperialist war by the U.S., as the entire point of the Cold War was influence and power. The U.S. exerted control via aid (long one of it's favorite tactics) and military support/intervention, as well as through the threat of nuclear war. [6] From there, you have numerous instances of America gaining and exerting political control, including: the Korean War (supporting pro-America allies), the Lebanon Crisis (supporting pro-America forces), and the Vietnam War (supporting pro-American forces). [7] MODERN IMPERIALISM Modern U.S. imperialism has continued its tactics of indirect control and small military intervention, either through support or direct conflict. [8][9][13][14] It has quietly supported foreign regimes whose policies are in its favor, and deposed those which are not. [10][11] In addition to these smaller, lesser-known acts of intervention and control, the recent "War on Terrorism" is a blatant and obvious show of interventionism. In addition to the war generally being interventionist, America has attempted to push pro-American Western ideals, forms of government, and even governments itself on affected countries. Currently, the departments of foreign affairs, including the Secretary of State admits, unknowingly, that it is imperialist. It's self-admitted policy is one of exerting influence for noble goals, and though it's doubtful whether the stated reasons are true, it doesn't matter. [12] The goal of American foreign policy is stated as working on "export controls, including nonproliferation of nuclear technology and nuclear hardware; measures to foster commercial intercourse with foreign nations and to safeguard American business abroad; International commodity agreements; international education; and protection of American citizens abroad and expatriation". Imperialism is "the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence". CONCLUSION America has long made territory acquisitions. It has long attempted to influence and control other areas more directly. Even today, foreign policy is a major factor in American politics and even a factor in voters' minds. Resolution affirmed: America is and has historically been imperialist. SOURCES If the sources do not publish correctly, which occasionally happens, I will post a copy in the Comments section. 1. http://goo.gl... 2. http://goo.gl... 3. http://goo.gl... 4. http://goo.gl... 5. http://goo.gl... 6. http://goo.gl... 7. http://goo.gl... 8. http://goo.gl... 9. http://goo.gl... 10. http://goo.gl... 11. http://goo.gl... 12. http://goo.gl... 13. http://goo.gl... 14. http://goo.gl...

Politics

America-is-now-and-has-historically-been-imperialist./1/

I thank my opponent for the debate. Let me finish my posts by first clarifying a few things, and then pointing out how Pro's arguments are irrelevant. CLARIFICATIONS The rule broken I mentioned was actually that arguments were to wait until Round 2, however this is hardly worth breaking a sweat over. The ad hominem consists of the first paragraph of closing. Finally, my opponent denies that he ever admitted America is imperialist. Let us revisit the definitions. Imperialism: "the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence" Con (/// for emphasis): "I believe that ///America has adopted a foreign national policy stance that can be summarized as "interventionist."/// I believe that ///America does attempt to coerce other nations/// in some regards, and that in many instances it could reasonably be construed as detrimental." Interventionism: "///a policy of non-defensive (proactive) activity undertaken by a nation-state///, or other geo-political jurisdiction of a lesser or greater nature, ///to manipulate an economy or society///" (via Wikipedia) If America is interventionist, as Pro says it is, it is by its very definition also imperialist. To take action to manipulate another society is the same as indirectly or directly controlling another area's politics and economy. PRO'S COUNTER-ARGUMENTS ...are irrelevant. Let me list them, and why they are useless: 1. 'If the (dictionary) definition of imperialism is upheld, nearly every nation is imperialist.' Yes, and? As I said, every human is mortal, but that hardly makes "mortal" a meaningless word that cannot be applied to humans. The debate is not whether America is more or less imperialistic, only whether it is at all. 2. 'Purchased territory should not count'. I see no reason why direct territory acquisitions are only those which have been gotten through military might or trickery. No distinction is made, nor is any distinction correct to make. Pro contrasts this to military acquisitions, pretending that America has never done such. 3. 'Warfare is not imperialism'. Warfare alone is a direct way of extending or exerting power, even when it is justified or in defense. When done by a nation to those outside of it it is indeed imperialistic. Pro of course ignores my pointing out the reasons for the warfare in many of these cases: territory and/or control. 4. 'Americans are generous'. And? Besides, in many cases, government aid (as opposed to civilian aid) is a method of control. Consider a situation in which your ally and your enemy are fighting. Getting directly involved is a bad idea, but sending in aid to certain groups and areas can be a method of control. This is the tactic the American government uses, as I sourced. 5. " Given the amount of wars and conflicts in American history, no land was ever stolen, no country ever lost their heritage, no country was displaced, America never acquired the land and called it "America," etc." This statement not only blatantly ignores several of my examples (westward expansion, land taken from Mexico, land taken during the Spanish-American War, etc) but the examples of wars Pro gives in which America has not taken land misses the point. In many of these (Korean War, Iraq War, Vietnam War, etc) the entire point of the military conflict was to exert control. That the sort of control was supporting pro-America forces instead of directly taking over a country changes nothing. And, while not part of my opponent's real argument, I take issue with this false statement: "The heart of America, since its inception, was to escape from imperialistic dictatorships and to be the bastion of hope for those seeking to escape hegemony." There were two main groups that settled America and later became it. One group was the Puritans, seeking the freedom to perform their religion after they had tried to take others' religious freedom away. The other was tobacco farmers and other poor from England in search of land. My opponent has provided no evidence for this statement, indeed it is in direct contradiction to my evidence and at best would be hypocrisy. America's policy has been and continues to be imperialist. Resolution affirmed: I have provided much evidence that America is imperialist, my opponent has admitted it is interventionist (and by definition imperialist), and has provided no evidence or reasoning to the contrary.

Yvette

I thank my opponent for the debate. Let me finish my posts by first clarifying a few things, and then pointing out how Pro's arguments are irrelevant. CLARIFICATIONS The rule broken I mentioned was actually that arguments were to wait until Round 2, however this is hardly worth breaking a sweat over. The ad hominem consists of the first paragraph of closing. Finally, my opponent denies that he ever admitted America is imperialist. Let us revisit the definitions. Imperialism: "the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence" Con (/// for emphasis): "I believe that ///America has adopted a foreign national policy stance that can be summarized as "interventionist."/// I believe that ///America does attempt to coerce other nations/// in some regards, and that in many instances it could reasonably be construed as detrimental." Interventionism: "///a policy of non-defensive (proactive) activity undertaken by a nation-state///, or other geo-political jurisdiction of a lesser or greater nature, ///to manipulate an economy or society///" (via Wikipedia) If America is interventionist, as Pro says it is, it is by its very definition also imperialist. To take action to manipulate another society is the same as indirectly or directly controlling another area's politics and economy. PRO'S COUNTER-ARGUMENTS ...are irrelevant. Let me list them, and why they are useless: 1. ‘If the (dictionary) definition of imperialism is upheld, nearly every nation is imperialist.' Yes, and? As I said, every human is mortal, but that hardly makes "mortal" a meaningless word that cannot be applied to humans. The debate is not whether America is more or less imperialistic, only whether it is at all. 2. ‘Purchased territory should not count'. I see no reason why direct territory acquisitions are only those which have been gotten through military might or trickery. No distinction is made, nor is any distinction correct to make. Pro contrasts this to military acquisitions, pretending that America has never done such. 3. ‘Warfare is not imperialism'. Warfare alone is a direct way of extending or exerting power, even when it is justified or in defense. When done by a nation to those outside of it it is indeed imperialistic. Pro of course ignores my pointing out the reasons for the warfare in many of these cases: territory and/or control. 4. ‘Americans are generous'. And? Besides, in many cases, government aid (as opposed to civilian aid) is a method of control. Consider a situation in which your ally and your enemy are fighting. Getting directly involved is a bad idea, but sending in aid to certain groups and areas can be a method of control. This is the tactic the American government uses, as I sourced. 5. " Given the amount of wars and conflicts in American history, no land was ever stolen, no country ever lost their heritage, no country was displaced, America never acquired the land and called it "America," etc." This statement not only blatantly ignores several of my examples (westward expansion, land taken from Mexico, land taken during the Spanish-American War, etc) but the examples of wars Pro gives in which America has not taken land misses the point. In many of these (Korean War, Iraq War, Vietnam War, etc) the entire point of the military conflict was to exert control. That the sort of control was supporting pro-America forces instead of directly taking over a country changes nothing. And, while not part of my opponent's real argument, I take issue with this false statement: "The heart of America, since its inception, was to escape from imperialistic dictatorships and to be the bastion of hope for those seeking to escape hegemony." There were two main groups that settled America and later became it. One group was the Puritans, seeking the freedom to perform their religion after they had tried to take others' religious freedom away. The other was tobacco farmers and other poor from England in search of land. My opponent has provided no evidence for this statement, indeed it is in direct contradiction to my evidence and at best would be hypocrisy. America's policy has been and continues to be imperialist. Resolution affirmed: I have provided much evidence that America is imperialist, my opponent has admitted it is interventionist (and by definition imperialist), and has provided no evidence or reasoning to the contrary.

Politics

America-is-now-and-has-historically-been-imperialist./1/

Good Afternoon Vikuta. I just want to start by thanking you for serving our country. You have my deepest respect and thanks. Now, you've made some very strong charges about the government that I'd like to go over. I. You've charged the "elites that control the country" with having blood on their hands by standing in the way of other nations development. I would like to ask you for some reference that I can argue against. I'll bring my own argument. Between 2002 and 2006, the United States has given Palestine over 700 million dollars in Aid. As we all know, Palestine is a strong supporter of Hamas, a terrorist group that is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent Israelies. <URL>... II. Again, I'd like to know which case you are referring to. After the fall of Saddam Hussein, a government of the people has been attempted to be formed. The Prime Minister may not be a good man for the job, but to call him a brutal dictator is a long stretch of the imagination. III. To state that U.S. involvement in international affairs is for bad reasons is really more a matter of personal opinion. The war in Iraq is not a strongly supported cause. However, if you look at it this way, you might change your mind. Hussein is responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Even if the war in Iraq has shown there were no WMDs, justice for the innocent that were killed is a VERY good consolation. <URL>... ={0F2658E9-6A5E-45E9-ACE5-982C0CA355A1} IV. Again, I must ask who you are talking about. V. U.S. Presidents have been trying to build mideast peace agreement for decades. It's not something that is going to happen. The fight between Jews and Arabs goes back to Biblical times. U.S. involvement has nothing to do with thousand year old hatred for one another. I'll give my points in my next argument once I have more information from my opponent.

Guardian27

Good Afternoon Vikuta. I just want to start by thanking you for serving our country. You have my deepest respect and thanks. Now, you've made some very strong charges about the government that I'd like to go over. I. You've charged the "elites that control the country" with having blood on their hands by standing in the way of other nations development. I would like to ask you for some reference that I can argue against. I'll bring my own argument. Between 2002 and 2006, the United States has given Palestine over 700 million dollars in Aid. As we all know, Palestine is a strong supporter of Hamas, a terrorist group that is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent Israelies. http://www.israelipalestinianprocon.org... II. Again, I'd like to know which case you are referring to. After the fall of Saddam Hussein, a government of the people has been attempted to be formed. The Prime Minister may not be a good man for the job, but to call him a brutal dictator is a long stretch of the imagination. III. To state that U.S. involvement in international affairs is for bad reasons is really more a matter of personal opinion. The war in Iraq is not a strongly supported cause. However, if you look at it this way, you might change your mind. Hussein is responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Even if the war in Iraq has shown there were no WMDs, justice for the innocent that were killed is a VERY good consolation. http://www.frontpagemag.com... ={0F2658E9-6A5E-45E9-ACE5-982C0CA355A1} IV. Again, I must ask who you are talking about. V. U.S. Presidents have been trying to build mideast peace agreement for decades. It's not something that is going to happen. The fight between Jews and Arabs goes back to Biblical times. U.S. involvement has nothing to do with thousand year old hatred for one another. I'll give my points in my next argument once I have more information from my opponent.

Politics

America-is-the-World-s-Leading-Terrorist-State/1/

Let me start out by saying that America is a great place to live and America has done great things. Terrorists can do great things; terrorists are still terrorists. Most Americans are good people and are not responsible for the terroristic acts of the USA. American politicians and the American media are owned by handful of powerful corporations. These elites are motivated primarily by greed. They seek to increase their wealth by controlling as much of the world as they possibly can. They hide these truths from the general public with their almost complete control of the media. The public is encouraged to go along with these imperial visions under the guises of "patriotism" and "national security." Let facts be submitted to a candid world: (By "America" I mean the elites that control the country) America exploits third world nations and stands in the way of their progress, which has lead to the premature deaths of millions. America supports and often installs brutal dictators, which has lead to the deaths of millions. America invades countries for bad reasons, killing millions of civilians and its own troops. America harbors terrorists, who've killed hundreds, maybe thousands. America impedes the Middle East peace process, which could easily lead to the death of everybody. America gets mad at "terrorists" who, for some unknown reason, don't like what America does or who America supports. America then uses this as an excuse to restrict the rights of it people and to invade more countries and install more dictators/puppet democracies. America, with all its power and might, should use its position to bring the world together and focus its energy on making the world a better place. It should cease trying to gain more control of over the rest of the world in its unadulterated greed.

Vikuta

Let me start out by saying that America is a great place to live and America has done great things. Terrorists can do great things; terrorists are still terrorists. Most Americans are good people and are not responsible for the terroristic acts of the USA. American politicians and the American media are owned by handful of powerful corporations. These elites are motivated primarily by greed. They seek to increase their wealth by controlling as much of the world as they possibly can. They hide these truths from the general public with their almost complete control of the media. The public is encouraged to go along with these imperial visions under the guises of "patriotism" and "national security." Let facts be submitted to a candid world: (By "America" I mean the elites that control the country) America exploits third world nations and stands in the way of their progress, which has lead to the premature deaths of millions. America supports and often installs brutal dictators, which has lead to the deaths of millions. America invades countries for bad reasons, killing millions of civilians and its own troops. America harbors terrorists, who've killed hundreds, maybe thousands. America impedes the Middle East peace process, which could easily lead to the death of everybody. America gets mad at "terrorists" who, for some unknown reason, don't like what America does or who America supports. America then uses this as an excuse to restrict the rights of it people and to invade more countries and install more dictators/puppet democracies. America, with all its power and might, should use its position to bring the world together and focus its energy on making the world a better place. It should cease trying to gain more control of over the rest of the world in its unadulterated greed.

Politics

America-is-the-World-s-Leading-Terrorist-State/1/

The US uses bribery, extortion, aggression, and outright invasion to get it's way with third world nations that don't pose any threat to the US. The US overthrew Mossadeq of Iran, Arbenz of Guatemala, Allende of Chile, Torrijos of Panama and many other democratically elected leaders. The US did this because those leaders put the interests of their countries ahead of the interests of the United States. The US is actively seeking to overthrow the popular President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. It has supported the dictators like Pinochet of Chile, Hussein of Iraq, Duvalier of Haiti, and Suharto of Indonesia. The US has harbored terrorists like Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles. The US supports Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian lands. The US and the UK collaborated in the illegal expulsion of the residents of Diego Garcia, giving them practically no compensation for their crimes. I apologize for not elaborating on these cases as I have been very busy. I only have a few hours left before I forfeit the round, so I want to at least give my opponent something to debate.

Vikuta

The US uses bribery, extortion, aggression, and outright invasion to get it's way with third world nations that don't pose any threat to the US. The US overthrew Mossadeq of Iran, Arbenz of Guatemala, Allende of Chile, Torrijos of Panama and many other democratically elected leaders. The US did this because those leaders put the interests of their countries ahead of the interests of the United States. The US is actively seeking to overthrow the popular President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. It has supported the dictators like Pinochet of Chile, Hussein of Iraq, Duvalier of Haiti, and Suharto of Indonesia. The US has harbored terrorists like Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles. The US supports Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian lands. The US and the UK collaborated in the illegal expulsion of the residents of Diego Garcia, giving them practically no compensation for their crimes. I apologize for not elaborating on these cases as I have been very busy. I only have a few hours left before I forfeit the round, so I want to at least give my opponent something to debate.

Politics

America-is-the-World-s-Leading-Terrorist-State/1/

hello and thank you for starting this debate. "Jobs... are desperately needed in America right now." what is your basis for this contention? what material would you use for "the wall" and what kind of architecture or architect would you use and how long would "the wall" be? furthermore how would you ship the "material" and where would it come from? what people would apply for this "job?" and will you build said "facilities"? and do these people that "maintain" the facilities need learning experience? how about the "border guards" do they need training? 2. "Anything else that America does not want coming across it's borders." what else would America not want? small latino people? is there a majority vote on what constitutes what America wants? and as for drugs, weapons what makes you say America doesn't want those? and what makes you think Americans don't smuggle weapons into Mexico for the drug cartels. 3. Isn't there a border already and isn't it failing? what kind of cheap labor do you mean? not enough Mickey'ds how bout Wendy's? competition will be easier? why would you want that? and how will businesses and people earn and spend more money? there will be no rise in wages because a lack of something doesn't mean you get something else like money people will just find more people to fill the lawn mowers, so you haven't said why wages will rise, furthermore there probably won't be any raise in wages because you haven't said who's being paid and why they're being paid and how the wall affects them. "businesses and people spending more money demand grows" why will they be spending money and why will demand grow? and a growing demand of what? supply of what? and what demand? what businesses are you talking about? And what are they making or selling that people are buying? Do the employees that these businesses are looking for need training or a sort of specialty in a field or a degree? what unemployed citizens? "all of the above will continue to happen." what? where? in a vacuum world? and why will it be constant? How it's negative 1. material that is needed to build a wall must also be transferred by trucks that spend gas and needs truck drivers to drive them and the material needs buying. 2.all of these people guards, maintenance, architectures, management, and carpenters, are needed to be paid and who besides illegal immigrants are willing to do this sort of job. the guards need training and the training need to be funded. ultimately everyone needs to be paid. conclusion: you said that jobs are desperately needed which implies that people need money and that people are being laid off from their jobs because there is no money. one final question where is the money to pay all these people going to come from? the gov't? that's a very nice way of saying the people isn't it. that seems a bit redundant they're going to pay themselves? the solution can't be throwing more money into the fire to stop the fire. negated

headphonegut

hello and thank you for starting this debate. "Jobs... are desperately needed in America right now." what is your basis for this contention? what material would you use for "the wall" and what kind of architecture or architect would you use and how long would "the wall" be? furthermore how would you ship the "material" and where would it come from? what people would apply for this "job?" and will you build said "facilities"? and do these people that "maintain" the facilities need learning experience? how about the "border guards" do they need training? 2. "Anything else that America does not want coming across it's borders." what else would America not want? small latino people? is there a majority vote on what constitutes what America wants? and as for drugs, weapons what makes you say America doesn't want those? and what makes you think Americans don't smuggle weapons into Mexico for the drug cartels. 3. Isn't there a border already and isn't it failing? what kind of cheap labor do you mean? not enough Mickey'ds how bout Wendy's? competition will be easier? why would you want that? and how will businesses and people earn and spend more money? there will be no rise in wages because a lack of something doesn't mean you get something else like money people will just find more people to fill the lawn mowers, so you haven't said why wages will rise, furthermore there probably won't be any raise in wages because you haven't said who's being paid and why they're being paid and how the wall affects them. "businesses and people spending more money demand grows" why will they be spending money and why will demand grow? and a growing demand of what? supply of what? and what demand? what businesses are you talking about? And what are they making or selling that people are buying? Do the employees that these businesses are looking for need training or a sort of specialty in a field or a degree? what unemployed citizens? "all of the above will continue to happen." what? where? in a vacuum world? and why will it be constant? How it's negative 1. material that is needed to build a wall must also be transferred by trucks that spend gas and needs truck drivers to drive them and the material needs buying. 2.all of these people guards, maintenance, architectures, management, and carpenters, are needed to be paid and who besides illegal immigrants are willing to do this sort of job. the guards need training and the training need to be funded. ultimately everyone needs to be paid. conclusion: you said that jobs are desperately needed which implies that people need money and that people are being laid off from their jobs because there is no money. one final question where is the money to pay all these people going to come from? the gov't? that's a very nice way of saying the people isn't it. that seems a bit redundant they're going to pay themselves? the solution can't be throwing more money into the fire to stop the fire. negated

Politics

America-should-have-a-Border-Wall-surrounding-its-borders./1/

you didn't even answer my relevant awesome analogy at the end. Such a shame. My opponent wants to build a big wall on the borders of america the only reason for this is that he wants to build a lot of jobs. And BTW you dismissed all my question under the category "commen sense" which means you don't have the answers or don't know the answers I think the latter is most likely. Furthermore why the military architect? 2. Your answers are vague and do not satisfy the burden of proof. which of my questions are irrational? and you won't answer them or can't answer them? my opponent then examines my steps to how it's negative and then only focuses on those points and completely ignores the conclusion but let's examine what he deduced "How it's negative 1. material that is needed to build a wall must also be transferred by trucks that spend gas and needs truck drivers to drive them and the material needs buying. 2.all of these people guards, maintenance, architectures, management, and carpenters, are needed to be paid and who besides illegal immigrants are willing to do this sort of job. the guards need training and the training need to be funded. ultimately everyone needs to be paid. conclusion: you said that jobs are desperately needed which implies that people need money and that people are being laid off from their jobs because there is no money. one final question where is the money to pay all these people going to come from? the gov't? that's a very nice way of saying the people isn't it. that seems a bit redundant they're going to pay themselves? the solution can't be throwing more money into the fire to stop the fire." 1.) What Con explains here is supply and demand, which stimulates the economy and helps it grow. 2.) Any job training that would need to be undertaken would only further stimulate a demand towards current training facilities, which stimulates the economy further. The budget for building a border wall and how to find this in the budget are not relevant to this debate in my opinion. This debate is about if America "should" or "shouldn't" build this wall. The funding of large construction projects and this one in particular could be a whole debate in itself. 1. it's supply and demand? really who is demanding these things except you? you have said people need jobs but not which people you have not proved that anyone needs jobs furthermore what is being supplied and who is demanding it? 2 WHAT DEMAND? you're saying there's a demand who's demanding it? you still haven't even proven that our economy needs stimulating everything is functioning properly as far as our economy goes. "The budget for building a border wall and how to find this in the budget are not relevant to this debate in my opinion. This debate is about if America "should" or "shouldn't" build this wall. The funding of large construction projects and this one in particular could be a whole debate in itself." I shouldn't buy a car cause I don't have enough money

headphonegut

you didn't even answer my relevant awesome analogy at the end. Such a shame. My opponent wants to build a big wall on the borders of america the only reason for this is that he wants to build a lot of jobs. And BTW you dismissed all my question under the category "commen sense" which means you don't have the answers or don't know the answers I think the latter is most likely. Furthermore why the military architect? 2. Your answers are vague and do not satisfy the burden of proof. which of my questions are irrational? and you won't answer them or can't answer them? my opponent then examines my steps to how it's negative and then only focuses on those points and completely ignores the conclusion but let's examine what he deduced "How it's negative 1. material that is needed to build a wall must also be transferred by trucks that spend gas and needs truck drivers to drive them and the material needs buying. 2.all of these people guards, maintenance, architectures, management, and carpenters, are needed to be paid and who besides illegal immigrants are willing to do this sort of job. the guards need training and the training need to be funded. ultimately everyone needs to be paid. conclusion: you said that jobs are desperately needed which implies that people need money and that people are being laid off from their jobs because there is no money. one final question where is the money to pay all these people going to come from? the gov't? that's a very nice way of saying the people isn't it. that seems a bit redundant they're going to pay themselves? the solution can't be throwing more money into the fire to stop the fire." 1.) What Con explains here is supply and demand, which stimulates the economy and helps it grow. 2.) Any job training that would need to be undertaken would only further stimulate a demand towards current training facilities, which stimulates the economy further. The budget for building a border wall and how to find this in the budget are not relevant to this debate in my opinion. This debate is about if America "should" or "shouldn't" build this wall. The funding of large construction projects and this one in particular could be a whole debate in itself. 1. it's supply and demand? really who is demanding these things except you? you have said people need jobs but not which people you have not proved that anyone needs jobs furthermore what is being supplied and who is demanding it? 2 WHAT DEMAND? you're saying there's a demand who's demanding it? you still haven't even proven that our economy needs stimulating everything is functioning properly as far as our economy goes. "The budget for building a border wall and how to find this in the budget are not relevant to this debate in my opinion. This debate is about if America "should" or "shouldn't" build this wall. The funding of large construction projects and this one in particular could be a whole debate in itself." I shouldn't buy a car cause I don't have enough money

Politics

America-should-have-a-Border-Wall-surrounding-its-borders./1/

that's just bad argumentation it's not about the money it's about morality. if that was true why did you present the benefits of the border wall in mula? by your logic you haven't made an argument either and you haven't answered my questions. the burden is on you. Who presented or challenged someone to debate you did. who took the aff. or the one who has the burden of proof? you did. so you haven't presented an argument I have. and if you still insist that I haven't then that makes us tie and the tie goes to me because somebody has to win and you have to prove that your case is above mine not tie.

headphonegut

that's just bad argumentation it's not about the money it's about morality. if that was true why did you present the benefits of the border wall in mula? by your logic you haven't made an argument either and you haven't answered my questions. the burden is on you. Who presented or challenged someone to debate you did. who took the aff. or the one who has the burden of proof? you did. so you haven't presented an argument I have. and if you still insist that I haven't then that makes us tie and the tie goes to me because somebody has to win and you have to prove that your case is above mine not tie.

Politics

America-should-have-a-Border-Wall-surrounding-its-borders./1/

no they're not the negative only has to cast doubt not show any proof I will be more careful to never again debate you. I was hoping for a logical opponent. why "should" the wall be built? you still haven't said why. it's you burden not mine

headphonegut

no they're not the negative only has to cast doubt not show any proof I will be more careful to never again debate you. I was hoping for a logical opponent. why "should" the wall be built? you still haven't said why. it's you burden not mine

Politics

America-should-have-a-Border-Wall-surrounding-its-borders./1/

blah blah blah same post everyone please don't vote

headphonegut

blah blah blah same post everyone please don't vote

Politics

America-should-have-a-Border-Wall-surrounding-its-borders./1/

"I would prefer to debate a political conservative on this issue." I find most parity with libertarian ideals, which in itself is a bit too nuanced to claim allegiances with either liberalism or conservativism, however, I definitely lean more to the right. Hope that works for you. "1.A monarch who is elected for life (on good behavior)" I think this is a bad idea for a number of reasons. Lets just go ahead and give a person that is the cause of much cognitive dissonance as the perfect illustration for why your (Hamilton's) plan is less appealing under scrutiny: George W. Bush Imagine having this twice elected official in the White House for the rest of his natural life. You make it contingent upon "good behavior." What exactly that constitutes is unclear to me, and some clarification would be greatly appreciated. As it stands now, good behavior would seem to mean anything that is not an impeachable offense. GWB could potentially continue in the manner he has without hindrance or without ever leaving office because no one can unambiguously prove misconduct on his part. A lot of people have made innumerable assertions of misconduct on his part yet he has managed to survive all of the allegations. Why should we expect anything different in the future? The Constitution specifies the maximum time a president can assume office. I assume that much of the Constitution you are in disagreement with being that Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian politics differed markedly. In fact, the two vied for the affection of this fledgling nation with heated debates. How much of the Founding documents that enshrines the United States of America are you actually in disagreement with being that you desire a Constitutional Monarchy? "2.A senate elected for life (on good behavior)" We run in to the same problem as I've outlined above. These sentiments were shared by Thomas Jefferson when he gave reasons for setting term limits. The reasons are "to prevent every danger which might arise to American freedom by continuing too long in office the members of the Continental Congress." This makes sense because it lends itself to oligarchic thinking. People sometimes become disillusioned over time. People get old and develop ailments that would prevent them from delegating their authority with clarity. Imagine having Reagan as senile as he became in his latter years, running the country on the whims of a flippant thought. "3.A House of Representatives that is elected every 3 years." Why only the House of Representatives? "An elected-for-life Senate and Monarch would eliminate this problem." Can I ask how since you have not yet divulged any details at this point? Platitudes sound nice, but they don't offer the reader any insight on to how a plan might work out in practical terms.

Paradigm_Lost

"I would prefer to debate a political conservative on this issue." I find most parity with libertarian ideals, which in itself is a bit too nuanced to claim allegiances with either liberalism or conservativism, however, I definitely lean more to the right. Hope that works for you. "1.A monarch who is elected for life (on good behavior)" I think this is a bad idea for a number of reasons. Lets just go ahead and give a person that is the cause of much cognitive dissonance as the perfect illustration for why your (Hamilton's) plan is less appealing under scrutiny: George W. Bush Imagine having this twice elected official in the White House for the rest of his natural life. You make it contingent upon "good behavior." What exactly that constitutes is unclear to me, and some clarification would be greatly appreciated. As it stands now, good behavior would seem to mean anything that is not an impeachable offense. GWB could potentially continue in the manner he has without hindrance or without ever leaving office because no one can unambiguously prove misconduct on his part. A lot of people have made innumerable assertions of misconduct on his part yet he has managed to survive all of the allegations. Why should we expect anything different in the future? The Constitution specifies the maximum time a president can assume office. I assume that much of the Constitution you are in disagreement with being that Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian politics differed markedly. In fact, the two vied for the affection of this fledgling nation with heated debates. How much of the Founding documents that enshrines the United States of America are you actually in disagreement with being that you desire a Constitutional Monarchy? "2.A senate elected for life (on good behavior)" We run in to the same problem as I've outlined above. These sentiments were shared by Thomas Jefferson when he gave reasons for setting term limits. The reasons are "to prevent every danger which might arise to American freedom by continuing too long in office the members of the Continental Congress." This makes sense because it lends itself to oligarchic thinking. People sometimes become disillusioned over time. People get old and develop ailments that would prevent them from delegating their authority with clarity. Imagine having Reagan as senile as he became in his latter years, running the country on the whims of a flippant thought. "3.A House of Representatives that is elected every 3 years." Why only the House of Representatives? "An elected-for-life Senate and Monarch would eliminate this problem." Can I ask how since you have not yet divulged any details at this point? Platitudes sound nice, but they don't offer the reader any insight on to how a plan might work out in practical terms.

Politics

America-should-have-followed-Alexander-Hamilton-s-model-and-set-up-a-Constitutional-Monarchy./1/

"I apologize for missing the second round of this debate." No worries... I was out of town anyhow. Looks like we both forfeited round two. "One of the biggest concerns of Hamilton, John Adams, and many of the other founding fathers was that the poor would be protected from the rich, but that the opposite would not be true." Then I am a little confused because prior to this statement, you quipped that Ron Paul and yourself believe that the government rips us off to feed a bloated welfare system, all of which I agree with, however this is a clear contradiction. As well, it no sooner answers how the Hamiltonian system will eliminate or mitigate this effect. In the final analysis, my opponent has not substantiated any of the claims he initially made nor did he explain how he would have implemented them, indeed, he even neglected to explain how Hamilton planned on implementing these policies. It then becomes just more platitudes with no actual solution that is so prevalent among bureaucrats. My opponent could not argue the fact that under his Hamiltonian policy change, there would be nothing barring from someone such as George Bush to be in office for LIFE -- an enormous drawback if you ask the average American. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, it is the Constitution which stipulates term limits. Why do you suppose that is? It is to keep down tyranny and as a checks and balances system. The Voters, as in, "We the People," elect who we want, the way the Constitution says. Under your Hamiltonian system, the Constitution would be vastly different and only a few people would have the right to choose their elected officials. I say, let a good system breathe. Sometimes attempting to make improvements only makes things worse. And since the US Constitution is the benchmark and model for ALL other nations, I scarcely can see why under your plan something might actually be improved. For these reasons vote CON.

Paradigm_Lost

"I apologize for missing the second round of this debate." No worries... I was out of town anyhow. Looks like we both forfeited round two. "One of the biggest concerns of Hamilton, John Adams, and many of the other founding fathers was that the poor would be protected from the rich, but that the opposite would not be true." Then I am a little confused because prior to this statement, you quipped that Ron Paul and yourself believe that the government rips us off to feed a bloated welfare system, all of which I agree with, however this is a clear contradiction. As well, it no sooner answers how the Hamiltonian system will eliminate or mitigate this effect. In the final analysis, my opponent has not substantiated any of the claims he initially made nor did he explain how he would have implemented them, indeed, he even neglected to explain how Hamilton planned on implementing these policies. It then becomes just more platitudes with no actual solution that is so prevalent among bureaucrats. My opponent could not argue the fact that under his Hamiltonian policy change, there would be nothing barring from someone such as George Bush to be in office for LIFE -- an enormous drawback if you ask the average American. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, it is the Constitution which stipulates term limits. Why do you suppose that is? It is to keep down tyranny and as a checks and balances system. The Voters, as in, "We the People," elect who we want, the way the Constitution says. Under your Hamiltonian system, the Constitution would be vastly different and only a few people would have the right to choose their elected officials. I say, let a good system breathe. Sometimes attempting to make improvements only makes things worse. And since the US Constitution is the benchmark and model for ALL other nations, I scarcely can see why under your plan something might actually be improved. For these reasons vote CON.

Politics

America-should-have-followed-Alexander-Hamilton-s-model-and-set-up-a-Constitutional-Monarchy./1/

I would prefer to debate a political conservative on this issue. I really don't want to debate a populist liberal on this who is foolish enough to believe in something like "the more democracy the better" (mob rule) This is because it would turn this debate into something I don't want it to be at this time. At the time Alexander Hamilton was hated by many for suggesting this idea. I'm sure I'm going to recieve a similar reaction. I'm going to present Hamilton's idea and then let my opponent respond. 1.A monarch who is elected for life (on good behavior) 2.A senate elected for life (on good behavior) 3.A House of Representitives that is elected every 3 years. I should also add that the monarchy would not be hereditary. My premise is that the president and congress are too busy pandering to fickle and un-educated popular opinion in order to get elected to do what's best for the country. An elected-for-life Senate and Monarch would eliminate this problem.

Statesman

I would prefer to debate a political conservative on this issue. I really don't want to debate a populist liberal on this who is foolish enough to believe in something like "the more democracy the better" (mob rule) This is because it would turn this debate into something I don't want it to be at this time. At the time Alexander Hamilton was hated by many for suggesting this idea. I'm sure I'm going to recieve a similar reaction. I'm going to present Hamilton's idea and then let my opponent respond. 1.A monarch who is elected for life (on good behavior) 2.A senate elected for life (on good behavior) 3.A House of Representitives that is elected every 3 years. I should also add that the monarchy would not be hereditary. My premise is that the president and congress are too busy pandering to fickle and un-educated popular opinion in order to get elected to do what's best for the country. An elected-for-life Senate and Monarch would eliminate this problem.

Politics

America-should-have-followed-Alexander-Hamilton-s-model-and-set-up-a-Constitutional-Monarchy./1/

I apologize for missing the second round of this debate. I had finals and was unable to devote time to much else but studying. Thank you for accepting this debate. While I definitely see the problems you've pointed out, I would say that there are many problems with the current system of government and that no government can ever be perfect because they are designed and run by imperfect people. So while I can agree with you that this system of government would have it's faults I would disagree that it would be worse than the system we have now. I am also a libertarian. I am going to write in Ron Paul's name when I go to vote in November. During a debate Dr. Paul said something that really stuck with me. He said that it is no wonder we have extreme amounts of crimes being committed in this country. People see their government steal from it's people everday through the welfare system. The government takes the money from the rich and gives it to the poor. Most people try to justify this because the government is the entity taking the money. Bottom line though is that it's stealing. Dr. Paul was absolutely right. One of the biggest concerns of Hamilton, John Adams, and many of the other founding fathers was that the poor would be protected from the rich, but that the opposite would not be true. Too much government leads to despotism but too little leads to anarchy. This fear has now been realized. Our government responds to every wish of the mob even if that wish is to steal from certain citizens simply to make the majority's life easier. Remember, everyone has rights not just the majority. As Hamilton put it, our current system is "democracy checked by more democracy." Hamilton also proposed that when it came to the elected for life Senate only people of great property should be allowed to vote for it. The common people would vote for the House of Representatives. This system would have protected the rich from Franklin Roosevelt's socialist policies. Also, because we would still have a House of Representatives the common people would still be protected. I also believe that this system would have been good for another reason. I don't like big government. I think that over the years America has started getting away from the principles of Liberty that it was founded upon. With our government set up according to Hamilton's model the Senate and the House would have very different outlooks on what was better for the country. (One looks out for the rich the other for the common.) This would mean that because of their disagreements less laws would be put into action. This would have been the ultimate check and balance on the government's power.

Statesman

I apologize for missing the second round of this debate. I had finals and was unable to devote time to much else but studying. Thank you for accepting this debate. While I definitely see the problems you've pointed out, I would say that there are many problems with the current system of government and that no government can ever be perfect because they are designed and run by imperfect people. So while I can agree with you that this system of government would have it's faults I would disagree that it would be worse than the system we have now. I am also a libertarian. I am going to write in Ron Paul's name when I go to vote in November. During a debate Dr. Paul said something that really stuck with me. He said that it is no wonder we have extreme amounts of crimes being committed in this country. People see their government steal from it's people everday through the welfare system. The government takes the money from the rich and gives it to the poor. Most people try to justify this because the government is the entity taking the money. Bottom line though is that it's stealing. Dr. Paul was absolutely right. One of the biggest concerns of Hamilton, John Adams, and many of the other founding fathers was that the poor would be protected from the rich, but that the opposite would not be true. Too much government leads to despotism but too little leads to anarchy. This fear has now been realized. Our government responds to every wish of the mob even if that wish is to steal from certain citizens simply to make the majority's life easier. Remember, everyone has rights not just the majority. As Hamilton put it, our current system is "democracy checked by more democracy." Hamilton also proposed that when it came to the elected for life Senate only people of great property should be allowed to vote for it. The common people would vote for the House of Representatives. This system would have protected the rich from Franklin Roosevelt's socialist policies. Also, because we would still have a House of Representatives the common people would still be protected. I also believe that this system would have been good for another reason. I don't like big government. I think that over the years America has started getting away from the principles of Liberty that it was founded upon. With our government set up according to Hamilton's model the Senate and the House would have very different outlooks on what was better for the country. (One looks out for the rich the other for the common.) This would mean that because of their disagreements less laws would be put into action. This would have been the ultimate check and balance on the government's power.

Politics

America-should-have-followed-Alexander-Hamilton-s-model-and-set-up-a-Constitutional-Monarchy./1/

America's healthcare system is too expensive and inefficient. It's just cost to much money and it does not produce results. We need to make sure we get quality and affordable healthcare. The ACA is the change we need.

theITdude

America's healthcare system is too expensive and inefficient. It's just cost to much money and it does not produce results. We need to make sure we get quality and affordable healthcare. The ACA is the change we need.

Politics

America-should-have-the-ACA.-Also-known-as-Obamacare-./1/

Good luck to my opponent. Jobs Back 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 Workers Obamacare 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.

theITdude

Good luck to my opponent. Jobs Back 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 Workers Obamacare 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.

Politics

America-should-have-the-ACA.-Also-known-as-Obamacare-./1/

Okay I will now go through your arguments one by one, also I will be labeling 1. My previous statement : "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." Your Answer"The plan of the ACA resulted in workers being layed off. You see many businesses fail to financially meet the ACA standards. So you're saying that the ACA has a plan for a mess that same law very much created? Doesn't make sense. Is Obama going to make another unconstitutional executive order to expand this law? Supreme court will shut it down." My answer: One of the ACA's goals is to make sure individuals get quality healthcare that is not tied down to a job. If they are fired they still can find affordable healthcare. The country is moving away from employer based coverage. I'm not saying the ACA wanted to fire people but that if they do lose their jobs they have the option of still buying insurance. The firings haven't been massive either. The unemployment rate is falling and this will level out. 2 Your statement ; "Cheap healthcare is not quality. Nothing is cheap and quality" My Answer:I will refer you to a term doctors call fee for service. It means that doctors are billed by the number of tests or amount of procedures or visits. This lets people get unnessecary procedures. The government does not want to pay millions for bad healthcare. You should care because everyone paying taxes is paying to support the seniors on Medicare. You are paying . Why should the government be paying to a medical group because they say their the best when they provide bad care and there are others who provide the care better and cheaper. Now the government is willing to pay those who deliver better care that way the medical groups compete. It's basically like bargain shopping, why pay for a $50 dollar designer sweater at the designer store when you can go to a competitor for a cheaper price. 3. Your statement; "When plans are subsidized and there is no competition, the quality of products/services will greatly reduce competition." My answer: There is competition. Lot's of competition. The government is willing to give money to medical groups that will perform. Tell me, what will happen when the millions of new patients get their insurance and the government tells them that if they want them they will have to perform. The medical groups will be all fighting to get contracts, that means competition to perform better.Which will mean better care. 4. Your statement:" Obamacare has proven that the central government can't take control of the national healthcare.This is not quality care." My answer :We are just making sure people have options. We are trying to give quality care to everyone. We are spending to much money paying for care that does not deliver. I don't think we should be paying taxes to support bad healthcare. 5. Your statement :" Many individuals, despite requirements, are losing their coverage due to illness or injuries." My answer: The ACA says that if you have a pre-existing condition you can't be denied for coverage. Those with asthma,arthritis, and other conditions can get coverage. As time goes on more options will be available. The woman who has cancer can try joining a high risk pool. 6 My previous statement: "Obamacare is subsidized because of the government." Your statement; That's the mistake. This law is as liberal as I gets with some conservative extensions. Members of Obamacare are subsidized through the private sector. The people who actually work and pay for their own insurance have a hike in premiums so private insurance companies can meet ACA standards. Now, because of this, many people are losing their coverage. My answer: You are right, you are paying. Everyone else in America is paying.Paying to support Medicare and Social Security. The amount for hikes is peanuts compared to the amount you pay for Medicare and S.S. It is not like the hikes are forcing people to be ruined. 7 My previous statement :"Also think about those who buy coverage in their 20's and keep it after 65." Yours; Do you see that happening? No. My answer: Who knows? Just a statement: How do you think people reacted about Medicare ,Medicaid ,and Social Security. People all said stuff about that but tknow we can't live without it. If someone tried to cancel those people would be in arms.

theITdude

Okay I will now go through your arguments one by one, also I will be labeling 1. My previous statement : “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.” Your Answer"The plan of the ACA resulted in workers being layed off. You see many businesses fail to financially meet the ACA standards. So you’re saying that the ACA has a plan for a mess that same law very much created? Doesn’t make sense. Is Obama going to make another unconstitutional executive order to expand this law? Supreme court will shut it down." My answer: One of the ACA's goals is to make sure individuals get quality healthcare that is not tied down to a job. If they are fired they still can find affordable healthcare. The country is moving away from employer based coverage. I'm not saying the ACA wanted to fire people but that if they do lose their jobs they have the option of still buying insurance. The firings haven't been massive either. The unemployment rate is falling and this will level out. 2 Your statement ; "Cheap healthcare is not quality. Nothing is cheap and quality" My Answer:I will refer you to a term doctors call fee for service. It means that doctors are billed by the number of tests or amount of procedures or visits. This lets people get unnessecary procedures. The government does not want to pay millions for bad healthcare. You should care because everyone paying taxes is paying to support the seniors on Medicare. You are paying . Why should the government be paying to a medical group because they say their the best when they provide bad care and there are others who provide the care better and cheaper. Now the government is willing to pay those who deliver better care that way the medical groups compete. It's basically like bargain shopping, why pay for a $50 dollar designer sweater at the designer store when you can go to a competitor for a cheaper price. 3. Your statement; "When plans are subsidized and there is no competition, the quality of products/services will greatly reduce competition." My answer: There is competition. Lot's of competition. The government is willing to give money to medical groups that will perform. Tell me, what will happen when the millions of new patients get their insurance and the government tells them that if they want them they will have to perform. The medical groups will be all fighting to get contracts, that means competition to perform better.Which will mean better care. 4. Your statement:" Obamacare has proven that the central government can’t take control of the national healthcare.This is not quality care." My answer :We are just making sure people have options. We are trying to give quality care to everyone. We are spending to much money paying for care that does not deliver. I don't think we should be paying taxes to support bad healthcare. 5. Your statement :" Many individuals, despite requirements, are losing their coverage due to illness or injuries." My answer: The ACA says that if you have a pre-existing condition you can't be denied for coverage. Those with asthma,arthritis, and other conditions can get coverage. As time goes on more options will be available. The woman who has cancer can try joining a high risk pool. 6 My previous statement: "Obamacare is subsidized because of the government.” Your statement; That’s the mistake. This law is as liberal as I gets with some conservative extensions. Members of Obamacare are subsidized through the private sector. The people who actually work and pay for their own insurance have a hike in premiums so private insurance companies can meet ACA standards. Now, because of this, many people are losing their coverage. My answer: You are right, you are paying. Everyone else in America is paying.Paying to support Medicare and Social Security. The amount for hikes is peanuts compared to the amount you pay for Medicare and S.S. It is not like the hikes are forcing people to be ruined. 7 My previous statement :"Also think about those who buy coverage in their 20's and keep it after 65.” Yours; Do you see that happening? No. My answer: Who knows? Just a statement: How do you think people reacted about Medicare ,Medicaid ,and Social Security. People all said stuff about that but tknow we can't live without it. If someone tried to cancel those people would be in arms.

Politics

America-should-have-the-ACA.-Also-known-as-Obamacare-./1/

Opening Statements I thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate this topic. As a supporter of free trade, this should be a very interesting debate. The burden of proof should be shared between both me and pro, as his resolution is "America should strive toward self-sufficiency" and mine will be "America should strive toward free trade internationally". Self-Sufficiency: Able to provide for oneself without the help of others; independent . Free trade: (Economics) international trade that is free of such government interference as import quotas, export subsidies, protective tariffs, etc. (1) I believe these two ideas are at odds, as self-sufficiency as you describe it would only be attained through economic intervention by the government. This is evident in that the world is very diverse in goods and services, and a society as complex as our own wouldn't be as prosperous if it aimed toward self sufficiency as opposed to integration. People will always want goods from other nations, whether it be finished goods or raw materials. Arguments Individual Freedom: One of the biggest reasons to support international free trade is because it is done through individuals. This country was founded upon the ability of people to own property and have the ability trade goods with others. When two people make a trade, it is done for the mutual benefit of both parties. Others should not have a say in this mutually beneficial agreement, so long as nobody's rights are being infringed upon. For example, say an American business owner wishes to buy bananas from Guatemala, as bananas grow well there, and are therefore cheaper. The American sees the bananas as worth more than the money he would give, and the banana grower sees the money he would get from the trade as worth more than his bananas. They make a mutually beneficial trade, and both end up happier and economically better off than they were before. No one was hurt in the process and both people, and in turn both nations, end up a bit better off than they were before. I ask you this: is this something you really want to prevent from happening? Does the idea of self-sufficiency really trump over man's ability to make mutually beneficial agreements? I believe individuals should be able to use their money as they please, so long as no one's gets hurt in the process. Economic Prosperity: The opinions you state in the first round have major economic implications. They imply that the USA should not be trading with other nations, even if it is more profitable and more desirable to the individuals in both countries. "1. All industry and agriculture should be domestic." The biggest problems with this idea is that it is a lot of the time cheaper to buy these products from other countries. As I stated before, something like bananas aren't very good at being grown in the United States. Growing them here simply for the sake of having them grown in America would be a bad economic decision. Trading them is much cheaper, and it would prevent the prices of bananas from going up, which allows for people to use the money on other things. This isn't only limited to bananas though. In 2010, the top agricultural imports to the United States include fruit juices (43k hectoliters), wine (10k hectoliters), malt beverages (31k hectoliters), and fruits, nuts, and preparations (11k metric tons). (2) This shows the sheer amounts of agriculture products that we import to the USA. Imagine how much more expensive these, along with many other products, would be if they had to be farmed here. We simply don't have the environments, land, or natural resources to sustain the amounts of agricultural goods that we get from all over the world. Industry is another important part of the international trade in which we do. Industrial goods such machines, engines, and pumps make up 13% ($293 billion) of our imports, electronic equipment make up 12.5%($283 billion), and vehicles 9.1%($206 billion).(3) What this implies is that a ton of our money is being traded for goods that we use every day. These goods, which are definitely cheaper than what they would have been if made domestically, allow us to function effectively as a highly developed nation. I'd like to emphasize again that free trade gives us the ability to make huge profits off of industrial items while also allowing us to focus our abilities in America on other, more profitable jobs. If these things were made here, it would hit the pockets of every American citizen in affording the more expensive products. This causes a net loss in our economy. "2. Raw materials should be the only thing imported. " "4. Only raw materials not available in large numbers should be imported. " Any raw materials that could be imported for less money than it would take to bring here in America should be done. This could only benefit people here as we need cheap materials to make cheap products. Cheap products benefit consumers, which would be the common citizen. "3. I consider self dependency to be only 20% of finished goods should be imported. " What should be imported is anything that can make America more prosperous. As I have pointed out earlier, mutually beneficial trade agreements have a good effect on society. Whether it be between Americans, or between other countries is not important, so long as it is beneficial to people. Other Benefits: Other benefits includes the promotion of innovation and competition and disseminating democratic values. (4) Innovation and competition occur because different individuals in nations will work to try to make better and cheaper products than those in other nations. For example, the competition between Sony and Nintendo brought about fantastic developments in the videogame industry, which increased the value of videogames both here and in other countries. Had there only been American companies involved in the new videogames industry, innovation and competition would have been much slower, as less people would be involved in the industry. Disseminating democratic values can also result from free trade. "Free trade fosters support for the rule of law. Companies that engage in international trade have reason to abide by the terms of their contracts and international agreed-upon norms and laws. The World Trade Organization, for example, compels its member countries to honor trade agreements and, in any trade dispute, to abide by the decisions of the WTO's mediating body. "(4) What this means is that when free trade is allowed, corruption in government slowly dies down as contracts are enforced internationally. I'll let you respond now. Sources: 1. <URL>... 2. <URL>... 3. <URL>... 4. <URL>...

Valladarex

Opening Statements I thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate this topic. As a supporter of free trade, this should be a very interesting debate. The burden of proof should be shared between both me and pro, as his resolution is "America should strive toward self-sufficiency" and mine will be "America should strive toward free trade internationally". Self-Sufficiency: Able to provide for oneself without the help of others; independent . Free trade: (Economics) international trade that is free of such government interference as import quotas, export subsidies, protective tariffs, etc. (1) I believe these two ideas are at odds, as self-sufficiency as you describe it would only be attained through economic intervention by the government. This is evident in that the world is very diverse in goods and services, and a society as complex as our own wouldn't be as prosperous if it aimed toward self sufficiency as opposed to integration. People will always want goods from other nations, whether it be finished goods or raw materials. Arguments Individual Freedom: One of the biggest reasons to support international free trade is because it is done through individuals. This country was founded upon the ability of people to own property and have the ability trade goods with others. When two people make a trade, it is done for the mutual benefit of both parties. Others should not have a say in this mutually beneficial agreement, so long as nobody's rights are being infringed upon. For example, say an American business owner wishes to buy bananas from Guatemala, as bananas grow well there, and are therefore cheaper. The American sees the bananas as worth more than the money he would give, and the banana grower sees the money he would get from the trade as worth more than his bananas. They make a mutually beneficial trade, and both end up happier and economically better off than they were before. No one was hurt in the process and both people, and in turn both nations, end up a bit better off than they were before. I ask you this: is this something you really want to prevent from happening? Does the idea of self-sufficiency really trump over man's ability to make mutually beneficial agreements? I believe individuals should be able to use their money as they please, so long as no one's gets hurt in the process. Economic Prosperity: The opinions you state in the first round have major economic implications. They imply that the USA should not be trading with other nations, even if it is more profitable and more desirable to the individuals in both countries. "1. All industry and agriculture should be domestic." The biggest problems with this idea is that it is a lot of the time cheaper to buy these products from other countries. As I stated before, something like bananas aren't very good at being grown in the United States. Growing them here simply for the sake of having them grown in America would be a bad economic decision. Trading them is much cheaper, and it would prevent the prices of bananas from going up, which allows for people to use the money on other things. This isn't only limited to bananas though. In 2010, the top agricultural imports to the United States include fruit juices (43k hectoliters), wine (10k hectoliters), malt beverages (31k hectoliters), and fruits, nuts, and preparations (11k metric tons). (2) This shows the sheer amounts of agriculture products that we import to the USA. Imagine how much more expensive these, along with many other products, would be if they had to be farmed here. We simply don't have the environments, land, or natural resources to sustain the amounts of agricultural goods that we get from all over the world. Industry is another important part of the international trade in which we do. Industrial goods such machines, engines, and pumps make up 13% ($293 billion) of our imports, electronic equipment make up 12.5%($283 billion), and vehicles 9.1%($206 billion).(3) What this implies is that a ton of our money is being traded for goods that we use every day. These goods, which are definitely cheaper than what they would have been if made domestically, allow us to function effectively as a highly developed nation. I'd like to emphasize again that free trade gives us the ability to make huge profits off of industrial items while also allowing us to focus our abilities in America on other, more profitable jobs. If these things were made here, it would hit the pockets of every American citizen in affording the more expensive products. This causes a net loss in our economy. "2. Raw materials should be the only thing imported. " "4. Only raw materials not available in large numbers should be imported. " Any raw materials that could be imported for less money than it would take to bring here in America should be done. This could only benefit people here as we need cheap materials to make cheap products. Cheap products benefit consumers, which would be the common citizen. "3. I consider self dependency to be only 20% of finished goods should be imported. " What should be imported is anything that can make America more prosperous. As I have pointed out earlier, mutually beneficial trade agreements have a good effect on society. Whether it be between Americans, or between other countries is not important, so long as it is beneficial to people. Other Benefits: Other benefits includes the promotion of innovation and competition and disseminating democratic values. (4) Innovation and competition occur because different individuals in nations will work to try to make better and cheaper products than those in other nations. For example, the competition between Sony and Nintendo brought about fantastic developments in the videogame industry, which increased the value of videogames both here and in other countries. Had there only been American companies involved in the new videogames industry, innovation and competition would have been much slower, as less people would be involved in the industry. Disseminating democratic values can also result from free trade. "Free trade fosters support for the rule of law. Companies that engage in international trade have reason to abide by the terms of their contracts and international agreed-upon norms and laws. The World Trade Organization, for example, compels its member countries to honor trade agreements and, in any trade dispute, to abide by the decisions of the WTO's mediating body. "(4) What this means is that when free trade is allowed, corruption in government slowly dies down as contracts are enforced internationally. I'll let you respond now. Sources: 1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2. http://www.census.gov... 3. http://www.worldsrichestcountries.com... 4. http://www.heritage.org...

Politics

America-should-strive-toward-self-dependency/1/

Rebuttals "Think of employment. Factories will open up in America. People will be employed by these factories. Yes, the banana industry may decrease..... That person was put out of work by a Guatemalan and is now on unemployement." Factories are a bit different than growing banana trees, but I think you miss a key reason why we import and export agricultural products. We do it because it's an efficient reallocation of resources. When we have a lot of one food product, such as oranges, we export them because it is more profitable to the orange farmer to send the oranges overseas than to just sell domestically. It is more efficient to buy bananas from other countries than to make domestically. Both nations do end up better off because greater wealth is generated in both. What you miss in your example of a orange farmer losing their job is the fact you are comparing "bananas and oranges". Economically speaking, the orange farmer is actually better off with international trade because he has the ability to grow more oranges for markets around the world. He won't lose his demand in oranges because some people also want bananas. What would be detrimental to the orange farmer is if we strived toward an isolationist economy. This would crush the orange farmer, because instead of focusing his farms on oranges for both domestic and international trade, he would be forced to either sell less (less demand) or sell other, now more expensive agricultural products. There is no net benefit to this policy. On a broader scale, we mass produce things in America to sell to other countries too. The profit we get from this allows us to buy other mass produced things from these countries. The amount of value-generating employment we would get if this was cut off would be less. This is because people in America would then have to deal with making things that the other countries could make for cheaper, as opposed to focusing on our higher paying jobs. "One of the things you mentioned, nuts and fruits, actually helps my point.... Lowered unemployment(and fresher fruit)." The problem with this is that, if it was more profitable to make it at home, it would have already been done. People make products because they generate profit. The profit they would get doing this would be less than doing other jobs. If importation stopped, the prices would indeed go up on these products, allowing it to be more profitable. Except we then have to sell it for more as it would be more expensive to make here, which hurts consumers. The other problem is the jobs that it would produce would be less productive than other jobs the new nut and fruit farmers might have had if they focused their skills on other things. "While it may be cheaper, the US companies lay off people because Chinese people can work for pennies on the dollar. The US citizens lose their jobs and go on unemployment which causes tax surges. This causes people to have less money to spend on American goods. All this could be solved by simply making America self sufficient." Chinese workers working on pennies on the dollar is the reason we can have so much cheap products in America today. Many of the things that people buy, whether rich or unemployed, are made cheap enough so people could afford them and live better off than they would have been. You bring up the idea that US citizens lose their jobs and go on unemployment. While unemployment is a problem, the worst way to fix it is by making things more expensive for everyone. It would basically be taking money from the rich, middle class and poor (through consumption), and giving it to the unemployed. This is basically equivalent to unemployment benefits, except that it isn't as obvious to people. I will get into this later. "In addition, this will prevent the economic expansion of the competitors of the US. Especially China. The threat of China surpassing us would decrease dramatically when they no longer produce for the US." This is a "what if China didn't exist" scenario. The implications of losing our biggest trading partner is tremendous. A large portion of our economy is dependent on buying and selling between the two countries. For example, " In the United States, 41 percent of our clothing is made in China (57 percent comes from elsewhere around the world, with only 2 percent made domestically)" (1). Imagine the amount of extra money everyone in America would have to spend on clothing if we didn't trade in China. Instead of paying a few dollars on shirts and pants, poor individuals may have to spend over $100. We simply don't have the ability to compete realistically with China when it comes to some industries. We'd also lose a major buyer from the USA as well. In 2011, About $103.9 billion in products were exported to China(2). If this wasn't allowed, there would be huge losses to people all over America. It would cause a lot of unemployment as well, as companies would need to scale down their production to remain profitable. Less demand would mean the business would have to either lower the price of the product, or make less of it. If the company can't afford to make the prices so low, it is bound to reduce supply, and in turn fire unneeded workers. This graph shows how this works(3). Arguments Unemployment: "Again, think of employment opportunities for an Iron industry in America versus somewhere in Asia. " I would argue that employment is easy to solve. It's the generation of wealth that's the problem. The government could do various things to decrease unemployment, such as making government job creation programs, or increasing tax rates on imports. What you would advocate for is to shelter American industries from outside industries. In either case, the result is less money, as government doesn't create wealth, it uses it. For an example of how government fails to create good jobs, see the video above. One point that Professor Horwitz brings up is that "the story of human progress has been our ability to eliminate jobs by economizing on the scarcest resources of all, human labor, in order to make the things that we want." Another is "all technological innovation means that workers have to learn new skills and some are likely to be unemployed for a period of time. And while that unemployment is bad, the alternatives are worse. These labor transitions are the price we pay for economic progress. To prevent them would be to halt growth, innovation, and the reduction of poverty." While much of his arguments were in defense of technology, all of them could be said the same for cheaper labor in other countries. Cheap labor and technology have the equivalent benefit in our society. Limiting either hinders our growth. Since the 19th century, we've gone from agricultural jobs, to industrial jobs, to service jobs, to knowledge jobs. Market signals indicate what skills people should be investing in and where the new jobs of the future will be. To prevent our progress forward as a developed nation, by hindering our ability to have free trade, would be a horrible mistake. Previous Arguments: As Pro never responded to my other arguments, such as individual freedom, innovation and competition, and dissemination of democratic values, I must assume he has conceded to these points. In conclusion, people should not look to the government to create jobs. They should look at the free market to find out what jobs will generate the most wealth in the future. Wealth generating jobs are the jobs we need in America today, not government-generated ones. Sources: 1. <URL>... 2. <URL>... 3. <URL>...

Valladarex

Rebuttals "Think of employment. Factories will open up in America. People will be employed by these factories. Yes, the banana industry may decrease..... That person was put out of work by a Guatemalan and is now on unemployement." Factories are a bit different than growing banana trees, but I think you miss a key reason why we import and export agricultural products. We do it because it's an efficient reallocation of resources. When we have a lot of one food product, such as oranges, we export them because it is more profitable to the orange farmer to send the oranges overseas than to just sell domestically. It is more efficient to buy bananas from other countries than to make domestically. Both nations do end up better off because greater wealth is generated in both. What you miss in your example of a orange farmer losing their job is the fact you are comparing "bananas and oranges". Economically speaking, the orange farmer is actually better off with international trade because he has the ability to grow more oranges for markets around the world. He won't lose his demand in oranges because some people also want bananas. What would be detrimental to the orange farmer is if we strived toward an isolationist economy. This would crush the orange farmer, because instead of focusing his farms on oranges for both domestic and international trade, he would be forced to either sell less (less demand) or sell other, now more expensive agricultural products. There is no net benefit to this policy. On a broader scale, we mass produce things in America to sell to other countries too. The profit we get from this allows us to buy other mass produced things from these countries. The amount of value-generating employment we would get if this was cut off would be less. This is because people in America would then have to deal with making things that the other countries could make for cheaper, as opposed to focusing on our higher paying jobs. "One of the things you mentioned, nuts and fruits, actually helps my point.... Lowered unemployment(and fresher fruit)." The problem with this is that, if it was more profitable to make it at home, it would have already been done. People make products because they generate profit. The profit they would get doing this would be less than doing other jobs. If importation stopped, the prices would indeed go up on these products, allowing it to be more profitable. Except we then have to sell it for more as it would be more expensive to make here, which hurts consumers. The other problem is the jobs that it would produce would be less productive than other jobs the new nut and fruit farmers might have had if they focused their skills on other things. "While it may be cheaper, the US companies lay off people because Chinese people can work for pennies on the dollar. The US citizens lose their jobs and go on unemployment which causes tax surges. This causes people to have less money to spend on American goods. All this could be solved by simply making America self sufficient." Chinese workers working on pennies on the dollar is the reason we can have so much cheap products in America today. Many of the things that people buy, whether rich or unemployed, are made cheap enough so people could afford them and live better off than they would have been. You bring up the idea that US citizens lose their jobs and go on unemployment. While unemployment is a problem, the worst way to fix it is by making things more expensive for everyone. It would basically be taking money from the rich, middle class and poor (through consumption), and giving it to the unemployed. This is basically equivalent to unemployment benefits, except that it isn't as obvious to people. I will get into this later. "In addition, this will prevent the economic expansion of the competitors of the US. Especially China. The threat of China surpassing us would decrease dramatically when they no longer produce for the US." This is a "what if China didn't exist" scenario. The implications of losing our biggest trading partner is tremendous. A large portion of our economy is dependent on buying and selling between the two countries. For example, " In the United States, 41 percent of our clothing is made in China (57 percent comes from elsewhere around the world, with only 2 percent made domestically)" (1). Imagine the amount of extra money everyone in America would have to spend on clothing if we didn't trade in China. Instead of paying a few dollars on shirts and pants, poor individuals may have to spend over $100. We simply don't have the ability to compete realistically with China when it comes to some industries. We'd also lose a major buyer from the USA as well. In 2011, About $103.9 billion in products were exported to China(2). If this wasn't allowed, there would be huge losses to people all over America. It would cause a lot of unemployment as well, as companies would need to scale down their production to remain profitable. Less demand would mean the business would have to either lower the price of the product, or make less of it. If the company can't afford to make the prices so low, it is bound to reduce supply, and in turn fire unneeded workers. This graph shows how this works(3). Arguments Unemployment: "Again, think of employment opportunities for an Iron industry in America versus somewhere in Asia. " I would argue that employment is easy to solve. It's the generation of wealth that's the problem. The government could do various things to decrease unemployment, such as making government job creation programs, or increasing tax rates on imports. What you would advocate for is to shelter American industries from outside industries. In either case, the result is less money, as government doesn't create wealth, it uses it. For an example of how government fails to create good jobs, see the video above. One point that Professor Horwitz brings up is that "the story of human progress has been our ability to eliminate jobs by economizing on the scarcest resources of all, human labor, in order to make the things that we want." Another is "all technological innovation means that workers have to learn new skills and some are likely to be unemployed for a period of time. And while that unemployment is bad, the alternatives are worse. These labor transitions are the price we pay for economic progress. To prevent them would be to halt growth, innovation, and the reduction of poverty." While much of his arguments were in defense of technology, all of them could be said the same for cheaper labor in other countries. Cheap labor and technology have the equivalent benefit in our society. Limiting either hinders our growth. Since the 19th century, we've gone from agricultural jobs, to industrial jobs, to service jobs, to knowledge jobs. Market signals indicate what skills people should be investing in and where the new jobs of the future will be. To prevent our progress forward as a developed nation, by hindering our ability to have free trade, would be a horrible mistake. Previous Arguments: As Pro never responded to my other arguments, such as individual freedom, innovation and competition, and dissemination of democratic values, I must assume he has conceded to these points. In conclusion, people should not look to the government to create jobs. They should look at the free market to find out what jobs will generate the most wealth in the future. Wealth generating jobs are the jobs we need in America today, not government-generated ones. Sources: 1. http://www.good.is... 2. https://www.uschina.org... 3. http://www.acqnotes.com...

Politics

America-should-strive-toward-self-dependency/1/

Rebuttals "1. As far as farming goes, I was trying to pass the idea that people could eat home grown oranges INSTEAD of bananas. I would encourage eating only domestic goods." Encourage all you like. You won't stop people from wanting bananas. It's ridiculous to think that people would stop eating bananas because of the false assumption that eating bananas hurts orange farmers here in America. The problem comes when you want to force it on other people, and take away their freedom of using their money on what they want. "2. I am not saying to stop exportation, just importation." When you say you want self-sufficiency, it means that you want to be able to have our economy based almost entirely on domestic trading. When companies in America depend on foreign trade to remain in profitable, America isn't self-sufficient. Also, when you put tariffs on imported goods, the other countries respond in return. This policy doesn't work in the real world, as I'll prove later. "3. Though inflation may occur, more people would have jobs brought in by the new industries and agriculture. I also believe that the inflation would be temporary, eventually the farmers will get new ways of producing the crops. The increase in the sophistication of these industries would cause deflation." You are basically taking it on faith that things will go back to normal in a fair amount of time, even as demand for more food goes up from population growth. The reality is America isn't a huge farmland. The world's arable land is much larger than just here. As a result, food will always be cheaper if the markets are open. This is especially important to help the hungry and starving. Another problem with this idea is it prevents innovation and competition. When you take away the huge competitive world market, you take away a driving force toward new technologies and innovation that would result from America competing with these other countries. Also, without the competition, people would not be able to relate our high priced products to anything else in the world. This hurts our economy greatly. "4. My China comment was this: We would continue exportation to China We would virtually cease all importation from China China would lose a major buyer and would start going out of business(analogy) Consider it taking out the competion, legally" When you put an embargo on a country, they don't take it lightly. In reality, China would not continue being a trading partner with us if we decided to try to destroy their economy. All the progress we've made in having good relations with China for the past few decades would be reversed. Taking out the competition hurts our economy too. "5. I am not even saying that the government should create jobs, I am just saying that the government should strongly tax imports. The government should also do a variety of other things to ENCOURAGE self dependency, like allowing the keystone pipeline. I am republican, not democrat. I am a supporter of Newt Gingrich's idea of independency." What you are trying to do is use the government's high tariffs to create domestic jobs by stopping competition, and making products more expensive. The keystone pipeline is something you are supposed to be fighting against, because it is trade with a foreign country (Canada)! This makes us more dependent on their resources in theory. Now would you consider this a bad thing? Of course not! The resources benefit us. I will get into Republican ideas in my arguments. "6. There will continue to be competion, not in the world market, just in the domestic." There will be competition, just much less of it. This doesn't mitigate the horrible effects it would have on the economy. "7. I would like to look at history for this point. In the late twenties and early thirties, the world went into a depression. Never before had that happened. The reason the entire world was affected was that trade was high. With self dependency, if China fell for some reason and went into a poor economic state, America would barely feel it. Thus, it would localize depressions." Yes, the Great Depression was felt across the world because of free trade. An alternative of a world composed of self-sufficient independent countries would have had much less prosperous and less developed. Remember, protectionism causes an inefficient allocation of resources. This is inherently bad for any group of people. But the Great Depression is a perfect example of why your resolution does not work in the real world. "In the 1930s, many nations faced high unemployment, low production, and general economic misery. The United States was no exemption. In an effort to aid ailing American industries, Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley tariff, the highest general tariff the United States had ever had. Supporters hoped high tariffs on imported goods would increase the demand for goods produced in the United States and thus help the country out of the Great Depression. The exact opposite occurred. Other nations retaliated with high tariffs on American goods. Demand fell, intensifying the depression ."(1) This is just one example of the consequences that common citizens have faced when the government limited international trade. There are many more. Arguments Republicans and Free Trade: You bring up that you are a Republican, and support Republican policies. I also noticed on your account, that you think " Anything from Ronald Reagans mouth is golden and is my favorite." If this is true, then you are fighting against the very things he fought for under his presidency. The video above will explain his position on the issue. As a result, I think you should welcome international trade and competition, and accept that it is an important driving force for economic prosperity everywhere. Ronald Reagan was a Republican that recognized the fantastic benefits of such policies. His free trade philosophy allowed the American economy to grow tremendously. If you support what he did, then you support international trade. Conclusion Pro's sole arguments for a protectionist, isolationist economy have been for more employment and to fight China. I believe I have proven that these policies have the opposite effects on employment, and even worse effects on economic growth. I also believe I have shown that China is a necessary trading partner if we are to have a strong economy today. Purposefully making China an enemy through trading tariffs is one of the worst things we could do to our growing relations with that country and our own economy. Pro never responded to my points of individual liberty, increased competition and innovation from an international market, and dissemination of democratic values. I think these are all valid reasons to support free trade as well. In conclusion, America should strive toward greater trade with all countries, as it could only benefit our growth as a nation. Free trade is one of the founding principles of our country, and is one of the key philosophies for almost every successful country/empire in history. With the problems that we face today, it is important to ensure our policies make us as productive and as successful as possible. I hope I have shown anyone who reads this that individual freedom can make things better. Vote Con Sources: 1. Magleby, David, David O'Brien, and Paul Light. Government by the People . 22nd ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007. Print.

Valladarex

Rebuttals "1. As far as farming goes, I was trying to pass the idea that people could eat home grown oranges INSTEAD of bananas. I would encourage eating only domestic goods." Encourage all you like. You won't stop people from wanting bananas. It's ridiculous to think that people would stop eating bananas because of the false assumption that eating bananas hurts orange farmers here in America. The problem comes when you want to force it on other people, and take away their freedom of using their money on what they want. "2. I am not saying to stop exportation, just importation." When you say you want self-sufficiency, it means that you want to be able to have our economy based almost entirely on domestic trading. When companies in America depend on foreign trade to remain in profitable, America isn't self-sufficient. Also, when you put tariffs on imported goods, the other countries respond in return. This policy doesn't work in the real world, as I'll prove later. "3. Though inflation may occur, more people would have jobs brought in by the new industries and agriculture. I also believe that the inflation would be temporary, eventually the farmers will get new ways of producing the crops. The increase in the sophistication of these industries would cause deflation." You are basically taking it on faith that things will go back to normal in a fair amount of time, even as demand for more food goes up from population growth. The reality is America isn't a huge farmland. The world's arable land is much larger than just here. As a result, food will always be cheaper if the markets are open. This is especially important to help the hungry and starving. Another problem with this idea is it prevents innovation and competition. When you take away the huge competitive world market, you take away a driving force toward new technologies and innovation that would result from America competing with these other countries. Also, without the competition, people would not be able to relate our high priced products to anything else in the world. This hurts our economy greatly. "4. My China comment was this: We would continue exportation to China We would virtually cease all importation from China China would lose a major buyer and would start going out of business(analogy) Consider it taking out the competion, legally" When you put an embargo on a country, they don't take it lightly. In reality, China would not continue being a trading partner with us if we decided to try to destroy their economy. All the progress we've made in having good relations with China for the past few decades would be reversed. Taking out the competition hurts our economy too. "5. I am not even saying that the government should create jobs, I am just saying that the government should strongly tax imports. The government should also do a variety of other things to ENCOURAGE self dependency, like allowing the keystone pipeline. I am republican, not democrat. I am a supporter of Newt Gingrich's idea of independency." What you are trying to do is use the government's high tariffs to create domestic jobs by stopping competition, and making products more expensive. The keystone pipeline is something you are supposed to be fighting against, because it is trade with a foreign country (Canada)! This makes us more dependent on their resources in theory. Now would you consider this a bad thing? Of course not! The resources benefit us. I will get into Republican ideas in my arguments. "6. There will continue to be competion, not in the world market, just in the domestic." There will be competition, just much less of it. This doesn't mitigate the horrible effects it would have on the economy. "7. I would like to look at history for this point. In the late twenties and early thirties, the world went into a depression. Never before had that happened. The reason the entire world was affected was that trade was high. With self dependency, if China fell for some reason and went into a poor economic state, America would barely feel it. Thus, it would localize depressions." Yes, the Great Depression was felt across the world because of free trade. An alternative of a world composed of self-sufficient independent countries would have had much less prosperous and less developed. Remember, protectionism causes an inefficient allocation of resources. This is inherently bad for any group of people. But the Great Depression is a perfect example of why your resolution does not work in the real world. "In the 1930s, many nations faced high unemployment, low production, and general economic misery. The United States was no exemption. In an effort to aid ailing American industries, Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley tariff, the highest general tariff the United States had ever had. Supporters hoped high tariffs on imported goods would increase the demand for goods produced in the United States and thus help the country out of the Great Depression. The exact opposite occurred. Other nations retaliated with high tariffs on American goods. Demand fell, intensifying the depression ."(1) This is just one example of the consequences that common citizens have faced when the government limited international trade. There are many more. Arguments Republicans and Free Trade: You bring up that you are a Republican, and support Republican policies. I also noticed on your account, that you think " Anything from Ronald Reagans mouth is golden and is my favorite." If this is true, then you are fighting against the very things he fought for under his presidency. The video above will explain his position on the issue. As a result, I think you should welcome international trade and competition, and accept that it is an important driving force for economic prosperity everywhere. Ronald Reagan was a Republican that recognized the fantastic benefits of such policies. His free trade philosophy allowed the American economy to grow tremendously. If you support what he did, then you support international trade. Conclusion Pro's sole arguments for a protectionist, isolationist economy have been for more employment and to fight China. I believe I have proven that these policies have the opposite effects on employment, and even worse effects on economic growth. I also believe I have shown that China is a necessary trading partner if we are to have a strong economy today. Purposefully making China an enemy through trading tariffs is one of the worst things we could do to our growing relations with that country and our own economy. Pro never responded to my points of individual liberty, increased competition and innovation from an international market, and dissemination of democratic values. I think these are all valid reasons to support free trade as well. In conclusion, America should strive toward greater trade with all countries, as it could only benefit our growth as a nation. Free trade is one of the founding principles of our country, and is one of the key philosophies for almost every successful country/empire in history. With the problems that we face today, it is important to ensure our policies make us as productive and as successful as possible. I hope I have shown anyone who reads this that individual freedom can make things better. Vote Con Sources: 1. Magleby, David, David O'Brien, and Paul Light. Government by the People . 22nd ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007. Print.

Politics

America-should-strive-toward-self-dependency/1/

yeah, I bang in the east and the west I put your American sniper down to your chest This what civil war means to me like you hate your life If you like be in a war zone, that means you can suck your knife Thomas Jefferson is a p***y, he can instigate that he purpose to that means you don't make big sentences what that means to you I wish my dad didn't walk out of me if it's between you and the beast I can eat you like beef what agenda uses a bullet to have a meat you think you can be better off alone with you and the debate some dudes think your loco because you have a gay soul mate Watch and close before you post the sentences on the dictionary Look up what you mean back in the 1880s before the devils angry

Ezequielizedodyssey

yeah, I bang in the east and the west I put your American sniper down to your chest This what civil war means to me like you hate your life If you like be in a war zone, that means you can suck your knife Thomas Jefferson is a p***y, he can instigate that he purpose to that means you don't make big sentences what that means to you I wish my dad didn't walk out of me if it's between you and the beast I can eat you like beef what agenda uses a bullet to have a meat you think you can be better off alone with you and the debate some dudes think your loco because you have a gay soul mate Watch and close before you post the sentences on the dictionary Look up what you mean back in the 1880s before the devils angry

Movies

American-Sniper-was-not-meant-to-instigate-a-pro-war-agenda./1/

o God dammit he can't cancel I guess I'll pick up the pieces of this round. Yes there is hope for this country in a far far future but right now America is intolerable for our stupid mistake. We have gone into a war and wasted billions of tax payers money. Now some people say this may be because of bush and not America well if this country was so good ad strong we would not have voted for bush a second time. Now lets brake it down into a simpler slower track because I don't think your getting this. What did we start this war for? A desperate attempt to steal oil. Now some of the candidates think of bringing the troops out of Iraq. I think thats the first step. But this country is in such a big debt the candidates themselves might have to do things they didn't even plan for in there term. So I think this country should take it one step at a time and rebuild itself but for now I am against our bad decisions and against our current president.

Mikedapimp

o God dammit he can't cancel I guess I'll pick up the pieces of this round. Yes there is hope for this country in a far far future but right now America is intolerable for our stupid mistake. We have gone into a war and wasted billions of tax payers money. Now some people say this may be because of bush and not America well if this country was so good ad strong we would not have voted for bush a second time. Now lets brake it down into a simpler slower track because I don't think your getting this. What did we start this war for? A desperate attempt to steal oil. Now some of the candidates think of bringing the troops out of Iraq. I think thats the first step. But this country is in such a big debt the candidates themselves might have to do things they didn't even plan for in there term. So I think this country should take it one step at a time and rebuild itself but for now I am against our bad decisions and against our current president.

Politics

American-love/1/

You didn't even prove a point "natural beauty" ???? O yah natural beauty look at this Prove a point for once and this is footage f whta the iraqy war has done to iraq and america

Mikedapimp

You didn't even prove a point "natural beauty" ???? O yah natural beauty look at this Prove a point for once and this is footage f whta the iraqy war has done to iraq and america

Politics

American-love/1/

You are a friggin idiot listen if you really think that will happen then give all your money away to the government because we don't have any money ll that money went into blowing our own teenagers heads off. I think you are an idiot and to think I can't make any good statements or back anything up because theres nothing to argue about clearly you are an idiot who was like home schooled by 2 sheep. I am sorry to the public if there is anyone who would like to have a real debate with me about this topic I would love to this ends the debate. btw I keep accidentally putting arguments in the comment zone lol

Mikedapimp

You are a friggin idiot listen if you really think that will happen then give all your money away to the government because we don't have any money ll that money went into blowing our own teenagers heads off. I think you are an idiot and to think I can't make any good statements or back anything up because theres nothing to argue about clearly you are an idiot who was like home schooled by 2 sheep. I am sorry to the public if there is anyone who would like to have a real debate with me about this topic I would love to this ends the debate. btw I keep accidentally putting arguments in the comment zone lol

Politics

American-love/1/