Question: Should insider trading be allowed?

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

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

Title: force think tanks to reveal all of their sources of funding Content: Private investors have a right to privacy

Title: This House Would Force All Governments to Become Totally Transparent Content: I will do a point-by-point deconstruction of my opponent's flawed points. 1. It is not an infringement of policy. If I, the taxpayer, am paying for their government pension plan, healthcare plan, dental plan, etc. I have the right to know how much it cost. Naturally there should be exceptions to this where the government does not have access to their information. This could be such situations where the government employee pays out of pocket for a private clinic. This would encourage government employees to more frugal with our money. 2. If one is found innocent, they should have nothing to hide. The truth is that all of us have something to hide, and in a society where secrecy is held above all, leaking any sort of private information can be damaging. However, in a transparent society where truth and openness is held above all, admitting to your own life should not be a scary thing. If one does seek to keep some things private, they are well within their rights. It would merely be advisable that they A. do not commit a crime and B. be honest with the police if accused of committing a crime. Furthermore, this would help to break down inter-judicial barriers that limit police and security services. Right now there is a mess of red tape that bar different services in different jurisdictions from sharing information. If we move forward today, it will help make our streets safer. 3. I do not accept that sharing information from civil decisions will hurt anyone financially. 4. The natural solution to protect young criminals would be to not commit the crime. This would work as an excellent deterrent. 5. I do not accept this point, please elaborate. 6. Great. While I do not suggest we apply similar transparency standards to private business, I think if a company is subject to regulatory action, they have given substantive reason for the investigation. Assuming they are guilty; the market will take care of them. Assuming they are innocent; they will be vindicated. I do not assume, as you do, that businesses still contain special 'trade secrets.' You also forget that the capital flight would be made impossible due to the U.N impose trade embargo I have stipulated. 7. You are speculating. 'Advice' given will be regardless of political correctness, the only difference is that the people will have access to this advice. 8. I never said that the panel would be chaired by countries. I would argue that the U.N secretary general has remained more-or-less impartial, as has the director of WHO. I think that a panel of experts could remain dispassionate as possible. 9. You do not seem to recognize that truth is a 2-way street. If Iran gets plans for America's ICBMs (which I would argue presents an immediate threat to human life, but I will continue regardless) then I would argue that America will know exactly what Iran does with them. This will eliminate this guessing game of foreign policy and allow U.S military decisions be based on concrete fact. Furthermore, dysfunctional nations such as Iran will not be able to survive in this world. The population will not allow the government to continue if they know the nitty gritty details of their authoritarian governments. 10. This is a different situation. If given the choice between transparency and begetting massive trade or secrecy and sparse trade, I imagine most countries will choose the former. 11. Again, if everybody has access to everyone's tax returns; who cares? You can find anyone's phone number, do you advocate destroying telephone books? I would argue that no one cares enough to actually look up another's tax returns. If it is a serious threat, any country may consider other means of protecting citizens' privacy. 12. Or, if one was to be optimistically inclined, commanders would act knowing that they are changing their immediate legacy. I believe you are debating on assumptions, semantics and overextensions. You are ignoring the monumental p

Title: Private investors have a right to privacy Content: This is not an inherent flaw in the system. In the status quo, large investors can still publically advertise the fact that they are funding a project, and this too can have repercussions and bring negative associations for other investors. It is a risk anyone makes when investing in a given idea. The right to privacy of investors in political campaigns was discarded once evidence of potential abuses and political arrangements surfaced. Similarly, this right cannot apply to think tank funders.[1] [1] “The Political Activity of Think Tanks: The Case for Mandatory Contributor Disclosure”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 115, No. 5, March 2002, pp. 1502-1524. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1342554

Title: Overregulating think tanks sets a dangerous precedent Content: This is not an inherent flaw in the system. In the status quo, large investors can still publically advertise the fact that they are funding a project, and this too can have repercussions and bring negative associations for other investors. It is a risk anyone makes when investing in a given idea. The right to privacy of investors in political campaigns was discarded once evidence of potential abuses and political arrangements surfaced. Similarly, this right cannot apply to think tank funders.[1] [1] “The Political Activity of Think Tanks: The Case for Mandatory Contributor Disclosure”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 115, No. 5, March 2002, pp. 1502-1524. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1342554

Title: The leaking of information to the public (e.g Wikileaks) does more harm than good Content: Reading your arguments so far, I believe you may think me to be against the giving of information to the public (e.g Wikipedia), rather than the leaking of privileged information (E.g Wikileaks). To be clear, I feel that people should be allowed to have information for students, or materials that they may need access to for lawful reasons. I do NOT feel that this access to information should extend to the public for information that is confidential, secret or potentially damaging to lives or national securities.

Title: SHUT DOWN THE STOCK MARKETS Content: I fully agree with what you say. But I am questioning the need to have stock markets that make a few rich at the cost of vast majority of investors and traders. Eating your favorite snack is one thing and losing money is some other thing I think. The demand supply dynamics in the markets are often manipulated and even some big listed companies manipulate accounts to boost the demand for their shares. What I say is that there are methods by which the companies can sell shares and offer better guaranteed returns for the investors without getting listed and traded in the markets. I only say that the stock markets, the trading places for stocks are often driven by unknown factors and make a few rich at the cost of vast majority of investors. If you say that the investors are knowingly taking the risk, that is right but when safe options exist, why allow people to risk their savings and investments is my question. Eating junk food and losing your savings are different things according to me. What I want is that the greed for quick money is making investments in stocks an attractive option. There is no harm if we replace the stock markets with a system where companies mobilize funds and offer guaranteed and risk free returns, higher to other types of investments to their investors. That way both gain. The companies as well as investors.

Title: you should tell Content: Since my opponent has forfeited their round, I will restate that if someone entrusts you with a secret, you should not give it to someone else. They have a right to privacy and you are not allowing them to handle the situation by themselves as they might want to.

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

Title: A number of possible models of regulation have been suggested for sovereign wealth funds. Some have... Content: Regulations already exist to prevent foreign investments that might compromise national security. Other than this it would be unfair to discriminate against certain classes of investors. Wealth-creating capitalism relies upon investors seeking to maximise the value of their investments. Without voting rights or the possibility of exercising majority control of a company, SWFs would be unable to ensure that managers were working hard on their behalf, allocating resources efficiently and being held accountable for their decisions.

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

Title: Employers hiring facebook users Content: I think that people should agree to let the employers get access to their account if they want to get the job. They must follow the policies that the company wants.

Title: SHUT DOWN THE STOCK MARKETS Content: "If you say that the investors are knowingly taking the risk, that is right but when safe options exist, why allow people to risk their savings and investments is my question." THIS MATTERS BECAUSE YOU SHOULD HAVE THE FREEDOM TO INVEST AS YOU CHOOSE AND NOT BE TOLD BY THE GOVERNMENT WHAT IS A SAFE OPTION, THIS IS CALLED LIBERITY. There is no reason to shut down the stock market, listed above is my opponents best argument against the stock market and as you can see it is an argument against personal liberty.

Title: Evasion should not be decisive in determining whether a tax is warranted. Every tax system is subje... Content: Evasion should not be decisive in determining whether a tax is warranted. Every tax system is subject to some evasion and avoidance, and the extent of such behaviours is an appropriate concern. In any case, the very low level at which individual transactions would be taxed would be lower than the cost (or risk) of using other instruments instead. The argument that offshore financial centres are autonomous states and thus cannot be forced to cooperate is nonsense – their very existence depends on the protection of a G7 member.

Title: A speculation tax on Wall Street is acceptable Content: Greetings, I am honored to have been challenged by name to this debate which will (hopefully) be an exceptional one. Since this is Pro's first debate, I feel obliged to offer a few brief pointers: 1. The debate topic is excellent as a speculation tax on Wall St. is a current, relevant issue. 2. Please define "acceptable" in Round 2. 3. Use as many credible sources as you can. With that said, I eagerly await Pro's opening arguments. Thanks, - Mr. Speaker

Title: Sovereign wealth funds suffer from an almost total lack of transparency. Most countries maintain se... Content: Transparency is a good thing, but it would be unfair to single out sovereign wealth funds for special punishment over this issue. Hedge funds and private equity groups are even less transparent than SWFs, and their influence in the global economy is much greater. Some countries (e.g. Norway) already operate very transparent investment strategies. It is likely that other countries will come over time to follow their lead voluntarily, as it is in the interest of their own citizens to see that the state is managing their money in an efficiently and honestly.

Title: A speculation tax on Wall Street is acceptable Content: Before I speak my points, I will do as my opponent has so requested and define the word "acceptable. " By the word "acceptable," I see its definition as, "2. pleasing to the receiver; satisfactory; agreeable; welcome. " [1] Now I will explain why a speculation tax on Wall Street is acceptable. I will argue this in two points. My first point will explain the efficiency of the speculation tax. In 2011, Senator Tom Harkin and Representative Peter DeFazio introduced the Wall Street and Speculators Tax Act, which, if put into effect, would tax three cents per hundred dollars of financial securities. This would be imposed upon trades taking place in the United States, bringing 352 billion dollars in revenue over ten years. [2] Not only would this bring revenue to supplement important programs but it would also fix a crucial tax loophole. The loophole I am speaking of is the fact that American taxpayers pay sales taxes from their transactions, yet those on Wall Street do not pay a sales tax when it comes to buying or selling securities. A speculation tax would also curb investors from making short-term bets, something that would potentially hurt the market if such gambling went out of hand, effectively reducing market volatility. [3] I now move on ahead to my second point: the moral reason why this tax is acceptable. As most of us know, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, more commonly known as the bank bailout, was an approximately 700 billion dollar package used to keep the banks from financial turmoil, despite that their constant lobbying and reckless gambling with the economy brought us to this mess in the first place. [4] Because the government used taxpayer dollars to help the mess-makers, it morally permissible that these same people reciprocate by scratching the back of the American taxpayer. The subsidy created from this speculation tax could help pay for certain programs such as making college tuition-free. And seeing how these same banks are subsidized by the government through tax breaks, tax loopholes (to the point where they pay NEGATIVE TAXES,) as well as the government's oversight of these same banks holding nontaxable, offshore money, it is reasonable that a speculation tax be implemented to keep these people in check. With that, I await my opponent's argument for the second round of debate. Sources: [1]: . http://www.dictionary.com... [2]: . http://ourfinancialsecurity.org... [3]: . http://www.usnews.com... [4]: . https://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: Aesthetic Preferences Reveal One's Moral Nature Content: Should be impossible to accept. Standard rules; propose definitions and explicit rules if you like. Gauging interest more than anything - not sure if I can commit.

Title: fracking -its just not right! Content: It may be a huge discovery , but does that make it right ? My answer to that is no it shouldn't be allowed ,it isn't right and frankly i don't know why they feel a need to put us at such a risk . There are other options other than this i think that its time we all had our say in this and say what we believe in before they make a huge mistake!!

Title: Stealing and invading privacy is fundamentally wrong. Content: While it may be a technically be a crime, it should again pertain to the points outlaid above on wether it is still ethically justified for the hack to take place, as it may uncover criminal activity or malpractice/corruption. Also, if the hackers genuine attention is to simply find a breach and report it - then what's wrong with that? And to respond to the analogy used by the Opposition, if someone found a way to get into your property, tried it themself and found it worked, but told you so you could fix it, then I am hard pushed to find anything 'fundamentally wrong' about it.

Title: Should students be aloud to sell at school Content: So I assume that what you are telling me is that you are Pro for allowing students to sell in school. Why should students sell in school? They are there to learn. With enough of our students slacking off in schools (compared to Asia and Europe), why should students have one more distraction to prevent them from learning correctly? Now to address your points: Students can learn about both of those in Business class or a Personal Finance class. Over to your Pro

Title: should facebook be allowed to access every website you visit for advertising purposes Content: I think yes because it is not an invasion of privacy without consent. Noone asks for fb to access their accounts and check their website histories. if people wanted fb to not access their web browser history then people should read the terms and conditions thoroughly before they click the I agree to the terms and conditions box. yes it is in the fine print that most noone ever reads although I read all of them to know exactly what I am getting myself into. so should everyone else!

Title: Sovereign wealth funds must be regulated Content: Regulations already exist to prevent foreign investments that might compromise national security.[1] Other than this it would be unfair to discriminate against certain classes of investors. Wealth-creating capitalism relies upon investors seeking to maximise the value of their investments. Without voting rights or the possibility of exercising majority control of a company, SWFs would be unable to ensure that managers were working hard on their behalf, allocating resources efficiently and being held accountable for their decisions. [1] Gibson, Ronald J., and Milhaupt, Curtis J., ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds and Corporate Governance: A Minimal Solution to the New Mercantilism’, 2009. http://legalworkshop.org/2009/07/19/sovereign-wealth-funds-and-corporate...

Title: Anarchy Content: My opponent argues that my arguments are based on "wishes" however if he were to read my arguments carefully, he would see that they are all based off of self-interest. Basically we are simply arguing what works out best for the person with the most resources. (P1) My opponent has described four situations that might arise out of our hypothetical scenario. I will deal with them below and show that a stable long-term trading partnership is more beneficial to the manufacturer than a short term dictatorship. 1. ) The controller of the resources can play fair and give everyone an equal share of resources out of it's personal stock. I would never argue that this is a likely scenario. 2. ) The controller can hire people to work for the resources directly. This is a very probable scenario in that the manufacturer gains A. - A stable work force, B. - A valuable trading partnership. It is in the manufacturer's best interest to act in a fair and reasonable manner. I have never argued that he would simply give his wealth away. 3. ) The controller can trade fairly with the majority. This is equally as probable as the second option. The only difference is the mode of exchange. In the first, the manufacturer is paid in labor, in this one, the manufacturer is paid with some sort other form of currency. Again, it is in the manufacturer's rational self interest to do this over trying to have a forceful relationship with his customers. 4. ) The controller can horde the resources and give nothing. Now we get to the scenario that my opponent somehow believes is most probable. It may seem like the selfish thing to do and it might seem that the manufacturer gains the most out of this scenario. However under a cost/benefit analysis this scenario can be seen to be incredibly unlikely. Costs: (A)Does not gain anything, (B)Creates a poor relationship with the locals, (C)Destroys his reputation with other would-be trading partners. Benefits: (A)Short term stronghold in relationship with locals. Any person with access to the amount of resources my opponent describes and the incredible greediness that he also describes would almost certainly go with the second or third options. He would not do it out of moral or humanitarian considerations. It would be purely and completely out of his own self interest. My opponent then tries to define government. He defines it as: //"A certain framework of order and authority that deals with certain criteria. "// Now do the readers understand my frustration? (P2) My opponent again shows a complete lack of knowledge of anarcho-capitalism when he writes this in response to something I wrote about private defense agencies. I will explain the context as I refute his reasoning. 1. ) Would be a breach of contract for creating a defense agency? My opponent might simply have mixed up his words here. I don't know what thought he is trying to communicate. Breach what contract? In order to form voluntary associations with corporations who have access to resources(weapons, manpower), a contract that dictates under what conditions this defense agency would help would need to be thought out. No defense agency would simply blindly help someone in any situation. If they come to the aid of someone who raped someone else, their reputation would necessarily be damaged. It is in their self interest to act in the fairest manner possible. How do you take my freedom away to build a defense agency? Your freedom is not taken away by someone building a defense agency. It is if you voluntarily associate with them that they have authority over you. And this authority is mutually equal. If they breach the contract(don't come to your aid when someone attacks you), you may consequently take them to an independent arbitrator to sue for some form of compensation. And why would I sign such a contract? No one makes you. It's called voluntary association and is the reason why it is not a government. However it would be in your personal self interest to sign with a private defense agency for similar reasons why it is in your self interest to have life insurance. It is so you have defense in the case that someone initiates aggression against you or your property. If you don't then you could be vulnerable to aggression. 2. )My opponent after simply asking me a lot of questions about AnCap argues that there would necessarily be violence between people with different defense agencies and that the winner would become a government. Disregarding the fact that this again does not actually constitute a government, my opponent forgets to apply the fact that these corporations cannot simply tax everyone around them to fund their war. In order to fight, a corporation must finance itself. I already showed how this simple fact would make war much less frequent than it is now. 3. )My opponent then moves on to argue that under AnCap you are able to hire private defense agencies to go after anyone who does something you don't like. Again, this point comes out only because my opponent refuses to listen to my arguments. One forms a contract with a private defense agency only to keep people from aggressing against his own property. Anarcho-capitalism is pretty much built around a strict adherence to the non-aggression principle. You do not hire goons to do your bidding, a private defense agency is there as insurance in case someone aggresses against you or your property. (P3) 1. )Here my opponent asks how his scenarios are "wild". The reason that they are "wild" is simply because my opponent keeps changing the circumstances every time I respond to his argument. They keep getting more lopsided as each round goes by. However, even with his changing of circumstances I have shown why self interest and a cost/benefit analysis create an equilibrium among the relations between manufacturer and consumer. 2. )Here my opponent again brings the argument that some people will always have control over others. Again he refuses to listen to my actual arguments. He absolutely refuses to take the egoism and self interest into account that he keeps claiming is the sole motivator of everyone's actions. 3. )Here my opponent argues that since the benefits will always outweigh the costs in transactions between consumer and producer. However I have repeatedly shown why when one acts in self interest, one will naturally work in a mutually beneficial manner because a long-term trading relationship is more cost effective to the producer than a short term war with short term benefits. (P3) 1. )This isn't really anything so I won't respond. 2. )Here my opponent makes a very poor assumption. He writes: //"When these different systems of authority decide to wage war on one another, for whatever reasons it might be. .. Allies will arise. Enemies will show themselves. "// Here my opponent again shows his complete lack of knowledge on how an anarcho-capitalist society would work. He makes this faulty assumption only because he is first assuming that corporations are governments and then making his arguments based on that. I however showed in R3 the major differences. I believe this is the third time or so I've had t remind my opponent that corporations are not able to coercively tax anyone near them. They make decisions based on a profit incentive. I have already shown why war would be a very rare occurence. I truly hope that my opponent carefully reads my responses so that I do not have to repeat myself again. It seems that he is choosing to incorporate self interest where it helps his case, but when it comes to my responses, people don't act according to self interest. This debate is going to be the death of me. The resolution that anarchy(specifically anarcho-capitalism) can be sustained as a long term form of societal organization is clearly affirmed.

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

Title: SHUT DOWN THE STOCK MARKETS Content: No one is forced to invest in the Stock Market. You know the risks when entering the market; you should have the freedom to make your own decisions even if they are unwise. Shutting down the stock market would also reduce the amount of capital companies have to invest in the market. In turn reducing how well companies can produce products. It would be stupid to shut down the market. You have the choice to enter the market; if you fail it is your fault. You have the freedom to decide if you want to make risky investments.

Title: Honest and poor is better than being dishonest and rich Content: The Honesty ContradictionThis is not even an important issue in this debate. However, clearly there is a contradiction. According to google. com, honesty is: the act of being free of deceit and untruthfulness, sincere. http://www.google.ca...Also according to google, a lie is: an intentionally false statement. http://www.google.ca...;Now Pro says that you can be honest and lie at the same time. This clearly makes no sense. How can you be sincere, free of deceit and untruthfulness, if you are intentionally telling a false statement? If you are intentionally deceiving others? It is clearly a contradiction. You can't be sincere and deceitful at the same time. When Pro says " I can tell you that you make good points and your going to win this debate. First part is honesty, second parts a lie. ", obviously Pro was not sincere about the first statement, because if I have good points, how can I not win this debate? Is dishonesty profitable? A major point of the debate. If you look at round two, Pro says: "You brought up insider trading which is a dishonest practice and yes it brings money". Clearly Pro agreed with me here. How bad are the consequences of dishonest? Pro says: " if a person committed a crime, scandal, or robbery the money would have been returned and the companies would have been insured and when they catch the person who has done the crime, the money that has recently been put onto their account regardless of if it was an offshore account would have notified the companies of this act therefore would have no money to get out of jail or bribe officials like you say". Really longwinded sentence, but basically, Pro says if you're caught, the authorities will take all your money and you can't bribe people anymore. The second part is related to the first statement, so if I can prove the first statement, I have also proven the second. The whole point of an offshore account is so that the money is untracable. In accounting scandals, the money is always sent to an offshore account so that authorities will not be able to find the money and trace it back to them. Therefore, an offshore account would not be found. Therefore, you would still have money. Therefore, you would be able to bribe people to get out of jail. Therefore, the consequences of being dishonest are not bad at all, as you still get to keep some of your profits after bribing to get out of jail. As Pro says, "Humans may be greedy. " Therefore, Pro agrees with me that officials will take a bribe to release the criminal. Trustworthiness of a dishonest person? Pro thinks that not being trusted with money ever again is a huge deal to someone who has millions of dollars in his back pocket. So what if people don't trust you with money anymore? You already have so much money, it doesn't matter to you if people don't trust you with money. .Pro also thinks your money will disappear easily, however pro does not provide any evidence to back this up. How will it disappear easily? "Your money will be gone in no time? " How foolish. With hundreds of millions in the bank, you earn millions a year on interest alone. The money would not be going anywhere soon. Money = Happiness ? Pro says that the point where money can't buy happiness is: "when you have all the cars in the world, and the millions of dollars of houses, boats". First, it is not possible to have all the cars in the world. As it is impossible, it would never happen at all. Therefore, you would never reach that point in life. Therefore, money will always be able to buy happiness. Furthermore, as to your yahoo source: it says that 10-12% of happiness comes from money. There is not enough information here. IT does not detail the other factors that cause happiness. For all you know, 10-12% may just be the biggest percentage of your happiness. For example, 12% would come from money, 8% from family, 10% from health, 10% from work, 10% from hobbies, etc. All under 12%, but in the end, adding to 100%, your total happiness. Thus, in this case, the highest percentage of happieness would come from money. Therefore, the source is not a credible source as it does not give you enough information. Honesty = feels better? Pro says that: " it would feel much better knowing you didn't have to lie to get somewhere in life" and that somewhere is "where a person will want to be and somewhere that makes a person happy. " The thing is, when you are honest and poor, you want to be rich and live nicely. Howvever, that isn't possible because you are honest and poor. Therefore, you would never reach where you want to be in life. Therefore, you would never feel much better knowing that you didn't have to lie to get somewhere, as you never got where you wanted to be. And yes, all poor people (poor as being below the poverty line) live in slums and ghettos located in cities around the world. They wouldn't be living in slums and ghettos if they weren't poor. Pro says, in response to my argument that living in a suite will make anyone feel better, with "it is an unrealistic fantasy, and although it looks like people who are rich live great lives I can promise you they are not as happy as it may seem. "Yes, it is an unrealistic fantasy for some, however, it would still make anyone feel better. And I don't know about you, but rich people certainly do look very happy and live great lives. Honesty, a big deal? resume: yes, you can lie all you want on your resume. But the point is, because you lied, you got hired, you got somewhere in life because you were dishonest. IF you were honest and told the truth, you might have been hired and you would never have gotten where you wanted to get. false advertising: yes, but it works. It certainly gets much more consumers that if they were advertising the truth. Therefore, again, the benefit of being dishonest. Pro drops my argument about CEOs exagerrating profits. Therefore, the benefits of being dishonest outweight those of being honest, proving that honesty is not a big deal. Cheating and family? Pro does not seem to know what a family is. Family always back you up, no matter how lying, deceitful, and mean you are. That is just what families do. There is really no argument on this, as families always tend to support you no matter what. Dishonest jobsPro drops this point completely and ignores it. ConclusionTherefore, because of several dropped points, I have won this debate. The main clash in this debate, I have shown above. On each of these major clashes, I have won. I have proved my points and disproved Pros. I have shown benefits of being dishonest, and Pro attemtped to show the benefits of being honest, however I refuted those completely. Therefore, it is obvious that I have won this debate.

Title: Resolved: The Letter of the Law Ought to Have Priority Over the Spirit of the Law. Content: I would like to begin by pointing out that due to being on the road so much today, I don't have access to my computer so I have to use my phone, so I may have multiple spelling errors and I am also going to keep it brief. First, I could evade taxes (as many wealthy people do) by creating what is called a "sell company" and registering it in a tax safe haven and then channeling money into it, very easy to do and only costs $50 I believe for a business license. I could also request payment in commodities such as gold and silk which wouldn't be taxed and then trade them for cash, which is also common. Unfortunately, as I am still on the road I will close this round off here. My opponent brought very good contentions, but I believe my points still stand.

Title: Sovereign Wealth funds are not transparent Content: Transparency is a good thing, but it would be unfair to single out sovereign wealth funds for special punishment over this issue. Hedge funds and private equity groups are even less transparent than SWFs, and their influence in the global economy is much greater.[1] Some countries (e.g. Norway) already operate very transparent investment strategies. Many have agreed to the Santiago Principles which encourage transparency and disclosure of financial information.[2] It is likely that other countries will come over time to follow their lead voluntarily, as it is in the interest of their own citizens to see that the state is managing their money in an efficiently and honestly. [1] Avendaño, Rolando, and Santiso, Javier, ‘Are Sovereign Wealth Funds’ Investments Politically Biased? A Comparison with Mutual Funds’, 2009, p.9. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/0/44301172.pdf [2] Ibid

Title: should games be regulated Content: I agree with the first statment, but I have my own.http://graphics8.nytimes.com...Here is a video about itwww.youtube.com/watch?v=bj7GdEjNGqgAs you can see regulating can be good.

Title: Capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income. Content: You do make a compelling point, which I think goes only to highlight that not all capital gains deserve to be treated equally. It also highlights how efficient our capital markets have become in allowing wealth to sustain wealth by simply investing it in the markets and putting your money to work passively. However, I'd much agree that direct investments (by small/medium business owners who are making decisions about hiring & firing workers, etc.) are arguably more important to society than passive investment decisions. As such, I would very much favor a reduced capital gains tax on small-business owners engaged in hiring new employees to grow their business. Perhaps for every new employee hired, busiesses are able to claim a deduction on their capital gains tax.However, I don't believe it is government's role to dtermine how much individuals "want to work". There wil always be some who value their time more than money, and others who are always hungrier for more. In absolute terms, individuals generally decide to either work or not, and if they are working, they're going to maximize their self-interest. If in the high-tax environment, the CEO decides that his time isn't worth the effort to open the new location, then there's probably another entrepreneur out there who is willing to put their time into it. In fact, the original CEO's passive investment may find its way toward funding the hungrier entrepreneur, who wants to translate their effort and time into increased outcomes. Finally, we should also keep in mind that there are obvious benefits to the higher tax environment, that come in the form of government spending. In the high tax environment, the government ends up with 20% more funds with which to educate & train the next round of entrepreneurs who are hungry & willing to go out and build businesses. As such, I rest my case that taxing capital gains as ordinary income would be best for the greater economic good.

Title: Minimum Wage Content: My position is that it is impermissible for the government to intervene in the business dealings between two capable and consenting parties. I would like for both the economic and the moral implications to be highlighted throughout the debate.

Title: The use of credit scoring should be prohibited in hiring practices. Content: You seem to be attempting to answer the question "Should companies choose to use credit scoring in hiring practices? " The resolution, however, asks whether it should be PROHIBITED,which means all your questions of whether it's correlated with turnover (not necessarily the only factor with which one should be concerned, especially if they steal and don't get caught, or are subject to blackmail for their debts that results in problems in security-sensitives jobs with military contractors and the like who often use credit history, but that's secondary to the main point) are out the window; because it becomes an issue of force, which is absolutely immoral under any non-retaliatory circumstances. The government does not morally have the right to interfere with freedom of association or property rights in such a manner, and the former also happens to be unconstitutional. You see, the sole purpose and justification of government is the protection of rights, when it becomes the violator, people's self-interest no longer clearly lies with that government, and self-interest is the fundamental rule of action. Any breach between actor and beneficiary is an error in planning, an ethical contradiction, because human beings seek to live, and their own life is the only one they can live. Any violation of rights by the government condemns said government.

Title: Employers hiring facebook users Content: I agree, because what the employers are doing is they are asking dor your permission to get access to your account and its on your own decision now. Also they are doing this process because they dont want employers to realease infrmations that the company is holding, or the informations that contains the company's embarassment.

Title: Individuals have a right to privacy, including to their own financial records Content: Privacy is a right but it is not sacrosanct, and certainly should not be for people who serve the public. Freedom of speech is considered sacred in a free society, but anyone reasonable would agree that shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre is not given such protection, showing that even the most treasured rights are curtailed in the public interest. Both the special position of politicians as the effective embodiment of the people’s will, and the special power they wield, which is far vaster than that of any private agent, demands a higher level of scrutiny into their backgrounds, which means looking into their financial records, which can divulge much about their competence and character.

Title: Electronic companies must take responsibilty of older and less useful outdated products Content: Facts provided by my friend are unarguably correct. According to the law, there is no obligation on the company to provide the customer with perpetual upgrades. However laws remain beneficial when they are meant for the good of the society. For example change in laws by Obama government for the automotive industries for more fuel efficient and greener cars is a step towards goodwill for the society. I said, "companies who are being sticky to old rules and regulations and not trying out on something new and innovative are bearing the brunt of being ousted from the market." I want to make my friend understand this thing that a step in this new direction will definitely do good to us. I am asking my friend to think from consumer's point of view. This is something we want and we expect and the things happening in the market is actually the result of our collective attitude towards the same. I agree with my friend that sole motive of companies is to mint money. It is the reason behind their existence but it is we who are responsible for their existence. I believe that those companies must exist to provide goods and services which remain till the end in the best interest of consumers. The profit they are getting is an indication that we consumers are being satisfied, by how much I don't know, it varies from person to person. The i-phone craze I saw where people remained outside shops waiting for the sun to rise and shops to open stands testimony to the point I am trying to make. You just don't throw it away, you keep it, you use it and love to show you own it. I want to make this a point that companies interests should be in consumer's interests. Won't you feel cheated if the company performs everything that appears sound on paper, but still ......I hope you are understanding........

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

Title: Bailouts Should be Banned Content: It isn't fair for the government to give money to one company just because it is in trouble. The government should stay out and just let the company die, if that's what'll happen. Another company will take its place.

Title: A number of possible models of regulation have been suggested for sovereign wealth funds. Some have... Content: A number of possible models of regulation have been suggested for sovereign wealth funds. Some have argued that state-owned investment vehicles that buy shares abroad should not be allowed voting rights in that stock. Others would put a cap on SWF investments, so that they cannot take a stake of more than, say 20% in any business – meaning that they can only be passive investors. Both these proposals would ensure that they are unable to abuse a dominant position while still allowing countries to benefit from cross-border investment in a globalised economy.

Title: Football players earn too much money Content: you are con, you disagree with me i.e you think they should not i know i made it confusing by mistake and got muddled up but now you are basiclly against them making this huge amount of money please continue with this debate ... :P

Title: Governments should do more to prevent the mega-rich from exploiting tax loopholes. Content: You analogy is flawed. The difference in your ‘restaurant agreement' is that that your rich bloke AGREED to pay his EQUAL share BEFORE the meal was ordered and the bill presented, then ran from the restaurant without fulfilling his obligation. Obviously this chap is in the wrong. In the tax scenario, the mega-rich bloke presumably agrees to pay all taxes he is obligated to pay by law, which he presumably did, but it is less then your equalized share because he uses holes in the law to reduce his tax burden. While not fair from your point of view, it is legal; Therefore he is in the right. A ‘loophole' in any law, means that the person who uses a loophole is still well within the law as it was written therefore not a law breaker. More simply put, it is what is written into tax law; not what is meant to be written into tax law that matters. It is the government's job to close any loophole or unintended consequence of a give law, but not to prosecute those who see the hole in the law and take advantage. This would be akin to charging a crime for a law not broken, but ‘almost broken.'

Title: SHUT DOWN THE STOCK MARKETS Content: I am not an expert in stocks. I am a commoner seeing many people investing their life savings in stocks and stock markets through one route or other, directly or indirectly with the hope of higher returns on their savings. The amount they save for the rainy day is not safe is my argument. The sentiment that drives the demand and prices for stocks or the sentiment that leads to market crashes is too risky as a channel for common man. There must be better way for the companies to mobilise funds for their activities and offer guarnateed returns without the bouts of volatility. I am for disbanding the stock markets and evolving a mechanism for the saftey of investors and also for the smooth growth of the companies. I shudder to think of the fate of the millions of investors who lost billions and billions across the globe due to weak sentiment. Sentiment is a thing that changes day to day on news and too dangerous for the investors. Better invest the savings safe in bonds or just keep the savings in current or savings accounts and relax is my advice to the common man.

Title: Sovereign wealth funds must be regulated Content: A number of possible models of regulation have been suggested for sovereign wealth funds. Some, such as Gilson and Milhaupt, have argued that state-owned investment vehicles that buy shares abroad should not be allowed voting rights in that stock.[1] Others would put a cap on SWF investments, so that they cannot take a stake of more than, say 20% in any business without government approval within the country the SWF is investing in[2] – meaning that they can only be passive investors. Both these proposals would ensure that they are unable to abuse a dominant position while still allowing countries to benefit from cross-border investment in a globalised economy. At the same time such rules would prevent any broader protectionist backlash so the Sovereign Wealth Funds themselves could welcome the regulation. [1] Gibson, Ronald J., and Milhaupt, Curtis J., ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds and Corporate Governance: A Minimal Solution to the New Mercantilism’, 2009. http://legalworkshop.org/2009/07/19/sovereign-wealth-funds-and-corporate... [2] Garten, Jeffrey, ‘We need rules for sovereign funds, 2007, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0b5e0808-454a-11dc-82f5-0000779fd2ac.html#axzz...

Title: Those countries which do not allow intercept evidence have created a bizarre form of legal limbo in ... Content: Where it is true that there are legal anomalies, these exist for good reason. Foreign governments can choose to reveal their intelligence gathering methods if they want, that does not mean the British government should. If one of the subjects of a wiretap is an agent or informer then it follows that we should be able to record this conversation just as when undercover agents wear wires. Further, private internal networks are technically easy to intercept as they are small and fixed.\ However, the opposition do not have to argue that the legal limbo at the moment is acceptable. Instead they can argue for a blanket ban on any such evidence and a strict separation between intelligence gathering and prosecution activities.

Title: Free Trade Content: IssueFree trade, with a limited amount of regulations, is good for the United States of America.Rules There is only one rule that I ask for and that is that round 1 is just for acceptance.Have fun!Oh, and no semantics!

Title: Pensions should be privatised Content: Private Accounts Would Primarily Benefit Wall Street

Title: The law Intellectual Property is the mean of monopoly for big companies Content: It's sounds good and fair competition in market for smart people to be protected with the law of Intellectual property(IP). However, many spheres in markets it is getting revealed as a monopoly.

Title: Should secondary school students be allowed to sell food to other students for profit. Content: What has become of my school and many others. My school is a brilliant grammar school with hardworking students. But something has plagued out school ethos. Students are now illegally selling food items to other students during break times for ridiculous amounts of profit e. g. +100%. Such items include cookies, doughnuts, candy products, drinks etc. What I find ridiculous, is how students will pay for one of the following products, yet knowing the price the seller bought the stock for. e. g buyer- one cookie= 0.50p retail buyer (student) 5 cookies= £1.00I would like to have my own debate on this subject. I would be con ( against selling ).

Title: The US should subsidize the development of a national commodity exchange Content: I will argue against this proposition, which evident from your list of hyphenated (-) remarks will require little effort. First, this exchange "will deal in international and national commodity exchanges" and yet it will also "be a national marketplace designed for the buying and trading of all commodity goods?" Exchanges functions based on the trade of large financial institutions, which are neither national nor international but multinational, so it is difficult to see how this would work in practice unless you took extraordinary measure to rewrite basic features of how multinational corporations operate within existing law. Please provide specific about how multinational corporations would work in your exchange. In the same vein how would firms like UBS, HSBC, and Deutsche Bank that have operations inside the United States, with employees and executes in US fit the contours of your exchange. Basic answers for your response: How would your federal commission gain the power to prosecute crimes? There is already an endless array of committees in Washington. The senate even had the financial inquiry commission which found securities fraud and other crimes but they did not have the power to prosecute individuals or individual firms. Why the U.S. department of customs would supervise a "national exchange" since by definition their jurisdiction does give them authority to regulate to do so. Again, if this is what you are suggesting, please state first how this exchange can "deal and international and national commodity[ies]" under existing law. Second, how do you suggest changing the structure of U.S. custom"because the FTC, SEC, and DOJ regulate every other exchange and are authorized under law to do so. For the next round please provide precise language about "commodity" as well as "national commodity," because as stated in the proposal it is meaningless. What "national commodities" are you talking about? Is a commodity air and water? You state that all commodities"and air and water as well as nuclear waste and pollution are commodities, or are these commodities exclude from "all commodity goods [?]" Even all this is made clear in your response, how will the US government subsidize this exchange? What kind of subsidies will individuals, companies, hedge funds, et cetera receive and what is the purpose provide benefits for only such groups? In addition, your exchange financially is designed to fail. 10% to execute a trade? Why would anyone want to pay 10% on a trade when they could simply use other exchanges that charge less than fractions of a penny? Also how will you regulate derivatives and futures trade on this exchange? How will you prevent front running and manipulation by high frequency trading firms? Would your exchange allow short selling, what about naked short selling? You also say that it will be an online format, what agency will be tasked with maintaining the integrity of your exchange given the endless way people can manipulate IP Addresses, masks their location, to prevent people in other countries from undermining your exchange. Will it be legal for an American to use your exchange in Europe?

Title: It is not professional Content: While it is okay to voice out your own opinion, there should be a limit to whatever we say. Every opinion should not affect anyone else. Opinion that can cause blunder should be kept away from public.And since the employees knows more about the employer than the public does, it is considered professional to keep information of the company and employer to the employee himself or herself

Title: Future of global capitalism Content: Governmental influence in favor of a corporation (and again, this applies to civilized and developing portions of the world) though, hasn't been over powering. The US's Citizens United decision gave influence to the concept of a corporation, but it didn't actually give it more than what already had: the ability to spend money. In the US, there are hosts of regulatory agencies and organizations with the specific goal of fining those vary same corporations (and their billionaire owners) for breaking the law, harming the environment, or lending in a unfair manner. With those checks and balances in place, each bubble pop from the latest-and-greatest-make-money-scheme hasn't taken taken the market down with it like that of the Great Depression. I am sure in the EU, there are hosts of banking and environmental rules to force compliance on behalf of the consumer, and even in nations like China, a large business is really never a few signatures away from being nationalized. Money definitely buys power, but when that power is found to be abusive and judiciously found in violation, the most important aspect that money had was that the violators aren't greatly punished. Rich people don't go to jail, and if they do, obviously its not hard time, but the example you bring up is not taking away human rights. Unfair? Of course! Money does that. Its an obvious disconnect that occurs, but in the way of human rights being removed, its just not there. Yes, its an unequal application of the law, however making the case that those breaking the law are not equally punished is a far cry from a violation of human rights. That type of injustice happens every where for a variety of reasons ranging from familial to judicial activism, and doesn't need to find its roots in venture capitalism. A company outsourcing its product to evade taxes runs the risk of consumer backlash, requiring protection, and still requiring a labor pool in the country you wish to sell your product in. This could be particularly damaging if a government wanted to institute tariffs on the newly imported product, the advantage of outsourcing could soon be negated by paying more to the government in order to sell your product in the market you ducked for taxes. Capitalism can indeed continue, corruption included, without violating human rights. I would caution my opponent, though, in some points, it sounds as though you are are debating that we are a plutocracy already, which is a few steps away from capitalism. If we continue down the course we are on, as has been demonstrated, we are not at risk for a global financial catastrophe.

Title: Reneging AIG bonuses would undermine shareholder confidence Content: Thomas Keeley. "In Defense of AIG Bonuses". DC Republican. March 18, 2009 - "Look at this from the role of shareholder: would you want to have the company you’re invested in revoke contracts that were designed to keep your talent on board, during an especially difficult time? If you were in fact a shareholder, and saw that it had the potential to yield a return with the right people and incentive, I would hope you’d say yes."

Title: A speculation tax on Wall Street is acceptable Content: This is my first ever debate, so I'm trying to get my feet wet here. Wish me luck! I wish to debate Mr. Speaker on the topic of a speculation tax on Wall Street. The first round will include me initiating the challenge (which I have done) and my opponent accepting the debate. After that, there will be three rounds of actual debate. Here's hoping this goes well!

Title: Future of global capitalism Content: Illegal conduct of corporations is not where the flaw is. It's not about keeping in line those who break the law. United States are very effective in enforcing the rules and laws in the financial area, IRS is known to be extremely effective. Those entities that actually break the law aren't those who change the nature of capitalism. That change is executed through legislation changes. Why break the law if you can change the law to suit your needs ... An example of decision that is inconclusive with democracy is for example the legislative change, that virtually any amount of money can be donated to political campaign, which is basically a garage sale of the core principles of democracy. Sure, the corporations could sponsor politicians with crazy money even before, but it was illegal then. And if someone found out and published it in the media, the politician could be forced to resign. So it's a huge game-changer. The noble ideal "for the people, by the people' is definitely gone in practical reality. Now politicians, the law-makers and secondly the government can be legally hired by anyone who can afford it - the wealthiest. Regular Joe doesn't have such an option, and he'll be most probably brainwashed into voting for the corporate horse(s). Who is now going to regulate these corporations? Well, nobody will. And when they'll cause a financial disaster, regular Joes and Janes will get the bill... Well, EU has plenty of power to regulate and enforce the rules, but only within. They can't protect the value of currency or advert a financial crisis, improve export markets or preserve jobs in case of global crisis. And it the global financial world, they do tend to have the global impact. I understand that rising custom duty on outsourced production would backlash. You put it into wider perspective and described it well. Outsourced production is a difficult topic. On one hand we get to buy cheap stuff (work less time to earn for the item from outsourcing production copared to domestic) but also, we feed another country GDP and deprive our people of jobs. I truly despise nationalist supremacy of any kind, but protecting own market and economy shouldn't be considered nationalism. So I can't get my head around the fact, that somewhere in China people do our jobs for the "hand of rice" while our (western) folks collect gov't assistance and live somewhere around the edge of poverty. So the "added value - saving on people's work" may look valuable at first glance, but costs the taxpayers money for domestic unemployment checks and create moral harm, because even the chinese workers do not make (by far) fair wage for their work. The saving are in favor of corporations, and managers in China who usually treat the workers with utmost brutality. Financially, or rather value-distribution wise, it comes down to more money for the corporation, who often don't pay their share of taxes (cause politicians may spare them as so called "job creators" - essential for domestic economy) on expense of tax payers, who have to pay the government with increasing unemployment. In other words a corporate ripoff. So yeah, instituting tariffs for outsourcing production and services may be harmful, but so is current situation and I believe something should be done about it. I think my opponent well understands the risk of capitalism in today's shape, but I find out dispute about particular impacts rich and interesting. Unfortunately, I don't share as much of his hopes towards sustainability (and preservation of comfortable life and fairness throughout the entire stratification of societies in the free western world), because the system fails in ability to be properly governed, and no improvements in establishing an authority or a system that could manage the system's vicious circles and loopholes can be seen.

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

Title: Sarbanes Oxley and All Similar Legislation Should Be Repealed Content: >Are you saying that there should be no law against falsifying financial statements? Advertisements employ the art of persuasion, where rhetoric and innuendo are appropriate. Financial statements should be factually accurate by law because altering them with incorrect information and causing people to invest money based on that false information is exactly the kind of thing which people should be prohibited from doing. Aren't financial statements generated by the bank? I am all for making sure that banking standards are a strict as possible. >I understand that most corporate failures don't occur from corporate malfeasance. In fact, I spoke on that point in the first round. I also understand that economies eventually recover and that successful businesses absorb their weaker and defunct competition. However, just because corporate fraud doesn't affect every company does not mean it should be left unregulated by law. My point wasn't that most corporate failures don't occur from corporate malfeasance. My point was that most companies don't fail from corporate malfeasance, period. >You argued in the first round that corporate failures do not cause a social harm. Your blanket assertion did not distinguish between the different causes of those failures. My "blanket assertion" was with regard to isolated corporate failures like Enron's, not nationwide economic recessions. Hopefully, your last rebuttal will address the former kind of failure rather than the latter. >SOX is not intended to protect investors from corporate failure; it is intended, in part, to protect investors from crooked practices. Why should they be protected by the government? Why can't they just hire their own auditors? Why shouldn't they be forced to do so? If they can't afford it, they obviously shouldn't be running a corporation. >When businesses fail, it affects more than just the investors and employees, who make up a large portion of society anyway. It affects consumers, related businesses and economies as well. This effect equates to a social harm. Again, we're talking about isolated corporate failures here. When A business fails, its assets are bought out by other companies and put back to work. >Sufficient for what? Early detection of a dubious investment is a utopian notion. In reality, deception often goes undetected for a substantial period of time or occurs after a period of ostensibly legitimate activity and practices. Such was the case in all of the pre-SOX corporate debacles. Red flags don't just pop up at the first instance of fraudulent activity. By the time they do, it may already be too late. To equate spotting a crack-head on the edge of a sketchy neighborhood to recognizing sophisticated and surreptitious white collar crime is a bit of a stretch. Your model of the investor/executive relationship presupposes that investors will have very little to do with how the business will be set up and run. If the investors were more involved in the process of creating Enron, I doubt that the byzantine accounting practices that made the debacle possible would have been put in place. I have no trouble with economically forcing investors to work on their investments. >SOX serves the interests of people who disagree with the notion of getting ripped off, which includes me, the government and an overwhelming majority of the country. The "notion" of getting ripped off is not nearly as important a reality as the fact that the group of people getting ripped off is very select. >A large number of shareholders cannot practically or effectively run a corporation without delegating certain roles to certain members. SOX sets a legal standard for these trusted positions, as it should for the power they hold. It is not an intrusion into capitalism. And the ones with the most power should be peopled with those the shareholders can trust. If they can't screen their most important employees with the kind of competence necessary to prevent fraud, they shouldn't be investing in a company. >Businesses cannot put people behind bars. They can make sure that some people never work again. They can blacklist people and shut them out of the workforce. They can actually do a lot of things if they can be bothered to. >Are you saying the law should only protect property that is necessary to survival? The law protects me from someone stealing my wallet, even if I only had $1 in it. So why shouldn't it protect me from someone stealing my investments? In the context of Corporate America, SOX decreases the incentive, opportunity and means to cheat the public and allows for the harsh punishment of those who attempt to do so. This is where we just have to agree to disagree. I make a very clear distinction between "private property" and "personal property", you do not. The difference between the two is almost a matter of taste, and so can't be debate very clearly.

Title: Pornography should be allowed on DDO Content: To clarify my position is it should be allowed as long as there is a disclaimer about the content. Reason being is I see this particular ban restrictive on what we can debate, and even helping in the community.

Title: Income Taxation Is Not Theft Content: However, I think it is flawed nonetheless, as I am about to show you. I will now systematically go through my opponent’s case and refute his argument in a clear and concise manner. Argumentation: C1: We have no legal property rights to our pretax income It seems my opponent has happily misunderstood my entire argument. My opponent argues that we have a legal property right to our pretax income. This cannot be true. We are legally obliged by the law to pay taxes. [7][8][9] Therefore, we have no legal property right to our pretax income. [9] This is a simple analytic truth. To argue otherwise is logically absurd! C2: We have no moral property rights to our pretax income My opponent claims that the government does not create nor distribute, and by extension owns, the currency. However, after careful examination, it soon becomes clear that even his own sources do not support his assertions. [10] The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States (FED) does not create the U. S. currency. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) and the U. S. Mint produces our nation’s paper currency and mints. Both the BEP and the U. S. Mint are part of the U. S. Department of the Treasury, which in turn is a department of the U. S. Federal Government. [11][12] They then put the bank notes and coins into the distribution circulation, of which the FED is a part of. My opponent further backs up his mistaken account of the monetary system by using a conspiracy theory video called ‘The Biggest Scam in the History’, I do not find this source particularly reliable. My opponent further argues that one is not obliged to pay for the services that one does not use. I think this is simply wrong. By delivering the public goods and services, the government is justified in setting the conditions. Taxation is a part of these conditions and by your participation in the system you agree to its conditions. The government is like a casino here, hosting a poker tournament. The house sets the conditions and charges the players at a fixed percentage of their chips. Participating in the tournament means agreeing to its conditions. Until and unless one pays the casino’s charge, one is not entitled to his chips. [13] Furthermore, because of the cohesive nature of the system, you will benefit from the public goods even if you do not use them directly. Take for example the road network. You might not drive a car yourself, but it reduces transportation costs and hence the prices of products you buy. Or take police services, one will always benefit from reduced crime. Another point is that some services do not allow for the possibility to opt out; once the national defense is provided, all people are defended. Not paying for these benefits would qualify as theft. [14] Let me draw a parallel, imagine you are member of a bicycle club. To make use of the benefits and facilities of the club you have to pay a members fee. You accept and join the club, but after a while you discover that you like some services better than others. You make use of the race bikes and mountain bikes, however you do not use the BMX bikes and Tandems. You want to pay tuition only for the services you use, however for practical reasons the club does not offer the option that you only pay for the services that you use. Because the club owns the bicycles they set the conditions, not you. My opponent further commits the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. I never made a claim about the posttax income. I left open what the best structure of the tax scheme is, because it is irrelevant to this debate. But whatever the answer may be, it does not validate the thesis that the pretax distribution of the market is just. I have argued that the distribution of the market is morally arbitrary and therefore has no moral significance. Thus the claim that there are moral property rights antecedent to pretax income is left unsupported. [15] C3: Taxation is not without consent My opponent compares taxation with slavery. This is merely a rhetorical trick, as no rights are violated under taxation. However, I would like to point out a rather essential difference: you can choose terminate the contract whenever you like, as a slave you cannot choose to opt out. A slave is someone who is legally owned by another person and is forced to work for that person without pay. [16] The government does not own you, you are not forced to work, you get paid and you are allowed to leave. I think it is more appropriate to refer to participants in the current monetary system as customers. If you think you have no choices, you have enslaved yourself. My opponent’s analogies do not correspondent with the situation of taxation — his analogies are nonparallel to the question at hand. Ultimately you decide whether you participate and thereby agree to the conditions, since your participation in the system is not forced; you are offered the alternative to relocate, again emigration is not forbidden. My opponent speaks as though he has a moral entitlement to the advantages of this society, e. g. public goods and services, built on taxation. This is not true, just like the rapist has no entitlement to the woman. The government however ís entitled to your pretax income. Again, imagine yourself in the bicycle repair shop. Like before you want to have your bike fixed. However you find the price absurd high and he even wants to make profit by charging more than the exact amount of service offered! It would be ridiculous if you then accuse the repairman of coercion or demand from him the choice of another shop, equally in quality. Recall the definition of theft; for theft to occur it has to be wrongful. The government works in peoples best interests, determined through elections. Ultimately, the legitimacy is based on democratic decision-making. This is justified with a moral theory like Utilitarian Consequentialism. If my opponent claims this is immoral, it seems to me that this puts the burden on him to proof that some kind of objective moral theory is true. Considering it is moral for the government to set the conditions, the government is morally justified to enforce these conditions. For example, when one does not pay his rent, the owner is morally justified in enforcing his property right. Conclusion: Recall from earlier that in order for taxation to be theft, it must concern that one is the rightful owner of the property being stolen. Firstly, I have argued that we do not have legal as well as moral property rights to our pretax income. The government creates the US fiat currency and by extension owns it and may set the conditions and terms. Therefore, theft cannot occur in the case of taxation, because what is being taken does not belong to us in the first place. Under moral acquisition theory, what is immorally acquired is not rightfully owned by one. In order to negate the resolution, my opponent has to show that we, in fact, do have a property right to our pretax income — he failed to do so. Secondly, I have argued that if one willfully participates in the system, he agrees to the conditions set forth by the system. If one claims not to consent, one cannot justify his participation in the system. Income taxation is not theft. Affirmed Sources: [7] . http://www.ourdocuments.gov... [8] . http://www.sba.gov... [9] . http://www.law.cornell.edu... [10] . http://www.richmondfed.org... [11] . http://moneyfactory.gov... [12] . http://www.usmint.gov... [13] . http://www.wenar.info... [14]. http://archipielagolibertad.org...(coment).pdf [15] . http://www.law.nyu.edu... [16] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Title: Privatization gives investment decisions to account holders. Content: "LETTER: We should privatize Social Security." Wausau Daily Herald. October 25th, 2010: "Additionally, the scare tactics of Feingold make it sound like the Social Security money those under 55 invest would have to go to Wall Street. That is not the case at all. The investment choices could be desigend so they would be at the individual's discretion. For those who feel the government can do a better job of investing their money than they themselves can, I would encourage them to give thought to allowing the government to handle not only the money they have contributed to their Social Security, but all of their savings as well. With its record of mismanagement, and a $14 trillion deficit, forgive me if I am not going to stand in line to join in."

Title: A privately owned business should be able to legally choose who it serves. Content: It is my belief that from all legal stand points a private business should be permitted to choose who it serves by any criteria they see fit weather that be racially motivated, religiously motivated, or any other personal belief. For example say for some reason IHOP no longer wants to serve asians then they can do this with no legal actions against them. Now let me be clear I do not support this behavior and should IHOP make this decision then I even though I am not Asian will no longer go to IHOP. This is how the free market works once the public learns that a business discriminates against a group of people the public will begin to no longer use said business forcing the discriminatory business to close. I support a businesses right to deny service legally not ethically.

Title: The media is a private industry, not a body of the state, and so its mandate is not to inform or edu... Content: The media is a private industry, not a body of the state, and so its mandate is not to inform or educate the public, but merely to provide a service that people are willing to buy. No other private industry is charged with 'contributing to democracy' - their responsibilities run no further than maximising profitability. Constraining the media in this way is a blatant and unjustified restriction on the right to trade.

Title: Organizations Can Ethically Inhibit the Free Speech of Their Members Content: I think it is unethical because you are restricting a person's freedom of speech. An employee of a company should be able to criticize the company they work for. Is it ethical to not let your employees to criticize their company? You are saying that it is ethical to punish a member for breaking the rules when they exercise their freedom of speech. Punishing them for exercising their freedom of speech is not inhibiting it because those people are still able to say those things. In order to really inhibit their freedom of speech, an organization would have to monitor what their employees post on social media sites or not even allow them onto those sites and far as I am concerned that is not ethical.

Title: Other methods are available to limit inflationary tendencies: Content: Independent central banks are widely used in the developed world, and can work for developing countries if effort is put in to designing the institutions correctly. It is ridiculous to suggest governments should restrict their own ability to help their economies, just because some governments have sometimes misused this power.[7]

Title: Resolved: Blackmail Should Be Legalized Content: Opponent’s CaseHe begins by discussing three different types of economic exchanges. Let us take a look at these examples. Example 1: Extortion. He tells you that if I threaten to kill you kitty unless you give me money, I have done something morally wrong because the act of threatening to kill the kitty is wrong. Hence, the entire action is wrong because one of its constituent parts is morally condemnable. This reasoning will be critical later on in the debate, so please extend it cleanly across the flow. The only reason that we know that this action is condemnable is because one of its parts is condemnable. Example 2: A storekeeper threatens to not sell golf clubs. His analysis is spot on here. The storekeeper has a right to threaten to not sell the material if he does not receive money in exchange.Example 3: Blackmail. He concedes that a blackmailer gains the right to another person’s information once he obtains it through legal means. He then questions why we should permit people to force others to select between two rights. Turn the analysis that the blackmailer gains a right to another person’s information. The moment that my opponent concedes this, he also concedes that the person gains the right to do what he pleases with that information. This is a direct extension of the right to property. If I own something, say a shoe, I have the right to do what I please with it. I can give that shoe away, I can wear it, and I can shoot it with a shotgun. If I have a right to a specific piece of information, I can do what I please with it. I can give it away or keep it safe; the choice is my prerogative. This is adequately demonstrated by the second “exchange” example he provided. In that example, a store owner tells an individual that he will sell the golf clubs to someone else if he does not receive any money. Blackmail fits that definition. The blackmailer owns a piece of information and he is telling that blackmailee that he will give the information that he owns to someone else if he does not receive funds.The fact that someone may have an “original right” to a an object does not mean that he has a greater claim on that object; rather, both individuals with claims on the object must come together and decide how to resolve the competing claims. This can be proven to be empirically true. When two individuals are divorcing, for example, neither side has automatic claim on their household objects or money even if they were the ones who originally brought said objects or money to the arrangement. Both individuals have competing claims on the assets and thus must decide together how to resolve those claims. Blackmail is nothing more than a resolution process. The blackmailer is offering the blackmailee a chance to purchase the rights to the information from the blackmailer. In other words, the two parties are coming together to resolve the competing claims. Just as “trades” are perfectly legal and moral in a divorce process, so is blackmail legal and moral.In the second contention, he discusses a contractarian view of justice, namely that “I would not want to be coerced, so I should not promote coercion.” People who join society want coercion to exist. This is justified by the fact that in order for a society to function at all, coercion must exist and be considered just. The state itself must use coercion in order to achieve its own ends. The state enforces all of its laws through coercion; individuals who break laws are arrested, for example, and people are coerced into paying taxes in exchange for the state’s goods and services. Unless coercion existed, the state, and according to Rawls society because the an effective society depends on the existence of a state, would collapse. Ergo, any individuals in the Original Position would agree that coercion is just because they would want to form a society. (Note that I am arguing that, as a principle, coercion is not unjust and would be wanted by society. I am not arguing that all coercion is just. If he argues this, he is strawmanning.)My opponent might argue that we only want the government to be able to coerce us, and that we do not wish to be coerced by others. This is false because all human interactions require coercion. Parents will want the ability to coerce their children to listen to them; without that ability, children have no incentive to behave properly or to become nurtured. Similarly, teachers will want the ability to coerce their students to do their homework and to study for exams. Even interactions between adults require coercion. My opponent’s Example 2 in Contention 1 of his the previous speech was an example of coercion. If I tell my neighbor to get off of my lawn unless he wants me to take legal action, I am using coercion. If I tell a thief to leave my house or I will defend myself from him and kill him, I am using coercion. If I tell an employee to do his work or I will fire him, I am using coercion. All of these examples demonstrate that coercion is not inherently unjust (as my opponent presumes), that society depends on coercion to function, and that people in the Original Position would want coercion to exist. He tells you that in a free market society, coercion is bad. The problem is that coercion is necessary for capitalism to exist. First, the example he provides of a storekeeper using coercion to obtain the profit of his choice is an example of coercion that is necessary for capitalism to function. The government also has to use coercion to enforce the idea of property rights. Contracts themselves require coercion for enforcement. There is no reason that coercion should be banned because it is both just and because it is necessary for society to function. My CaseHe objects to contention 1 by arguing that it is a fallacy of composition. It is not a fallacy because I am not using it to justify a statement as being true. I am simply using it to claim that something should be legal because no aspect of it is illegal. The only way in which we can evaluate whether or not an action should be legal is if we examine its parts; otherwise, we are simply rejecting it for no reason. My opponent himself was using this type of reasoning in his first contention when he discussed the reason the extortion is wrong. He told us that it is illegal because one of its parts, namely murdering/threatening the kitty, is illegal. Moreover, he is rejecting blackmail for the same reason. By claiming that coercion is bad and then arguing that blackmail is coercive, he is arguing that blackmail is bad because one of its parts is bad. Ergo, this rebuttal is not a reason to ignore my contention. Instead, this contention is basically dropped. The impact is that blackmail should be legalized.In contention 2, I discussed safer contracts. He first argues that sometimes the parties will not actually have information. This is easily resolved in the contract making process; if the blackmailer does not have embarrassing information, then the blackmailee will not agree to the contract. He then says I cannot provide infinite enforcement. That is not a reason to not permit blackmail because I have a net benefit of protecting as many people as possible. In his world, nobody is protected because blackmail is illegal. In mine, I am protecting as many people as possible. The fact that I will not be able to protect all people in practice is not a reason to not protect some people. I outweigh based on magnitude. Finally he says that the parties will be biased. This is true for any contract, but that does not mean that we should not let contracts exist and that we should not protect any contracts. Moreover, since both parties are self-interested, their interests will negate each other and the contract-making process will ensure a fair and agreeable contract exists for both sides. The parties themselves are responsible for this agreement just as parties in a business deal are responsible for their agreements.

Title: Private Accounts Would Primarily Benefit Wall Street Content: Another point the proposition could have made but did not is that Wall street is pushing for privatization of pension funds: The opposition's answer:The only reason the U.S financial services industry has favored private pension funds is because Wall Street can make huge brokerage fees(incl. premiums) on the billions of dollars that will be invested in private accounts. The N.P.V(net present value) of payments of financial fees to private companies in the case of privatizing securities will be a dramatic profit of $940 billion over 75 years. [[Austan Goolsbee, "The Fees of Private Accounts and the Impact of Social Security Privatization on Financial Managers", pdfsmall.gif PDF, 8 pp, September 2004.]] However, such funds can never benefit the ordinary citizens of the U.S and other market-based economies. For the sole reason that it is too risky. While and we have said this before; for economies that are largely bank-based the market and thus private pension funds play a rather unimportant insignificant role in terms of citizen welfare. As companies/schemes/funds rise and fall based on their relations with prominent banks and not on the ups and downs of markets; in a market economy once pension funds are privatized wall street benefits, the public is duped and most(if not all) of us are victimized by financial scams of the kind noted earlier. The market is unpredictable; we the citizens of these nations are not equipped with the financial expertise required to handle our own finances. Wall street is wary of the tricks of the trade and how to bend the rules to favor finance gurus. Betting on two opposite future outcomes is one such tactic. If everyone was taught finance in school things would be different; however, that is not presently the case. We can not set the public up for disasters it has faced in the past, that too not at an old-weak age; knowing that the factors contributing to the dismal effects of free Marketisation/Marketization still exist.

Title: Private Schools Should Have Students Wear Uniforms Content: Apologies for my failure to respond. Well played, your stance is strong and well supported. Really felt like I was grasping at straws anyways, as I've always felt a private institution has the right to institute rules as they see fit. I most likely would have forfeited if I had a chance to get to a computer over the last couple days. GG.

Title: It is reasonable that people have access to information that effects them personally but not information that relates to their neighbours’, employers’, former-partners’ or other citizens who maythose who work for public bodies. Content: There are, of course some costs to having a truly open and accountable government, but an effective right of access would allow much of that information to be made available. After all what the public sector bodies are paying in commercial transactions is of great interest to the public. If public bodies are getting a particularly good rate from suppliers, it might well raise the question of “Why?” For example, are they failing to enforce regulations on a particular supplier in return for a good price. In that instance, their other customers and their competitors would seem to have every right to know.

Title: The media is a private industry, not a body of the state, and so its mandate is not to inform or edu... Content: There may be an inherent right to trade, but there is no right at all to trade free from regulation. It has long since been recognised that the airwaves of a nation are public property, and thus governments have good reason to licence and regulate those who trade in them. In fact every industry must prove a public good before being allowed access to public property. The arguments for deregulation of such industries thus hinge on their offering this benefit to society and not on any innate right to do business. Therefore if governments believe the public good is best served by a balanced media, they are more than justified in legislating for this.

Title: Ms. Harman's Equality Bill is a bad idea Content: In reply to my opponent's comments, I do indeed agree that companies are all about maximizing profit and for some companies this means putting profits before people, hence the need for regulation. I started my own company way back in 1993 (that's right, not all company directors are frothing neo-cons) and I have always maintained that a contented employee will be a more loyal and productive worker. That's why I pay above industry-average salaries and accord my employees far more benefits that I am obliged to by law. Furthermore, our clients tend to be very discerning and ethically aware and I am confident that they would not give us their custom if they discovered that our staff were not being treated fairly. So, we can see that respecting workers' rights and being a considerate employer can make good business sense. That said, we do not positively discriminate in favour of female employees, as this would, as my opponent rightly points out, breed resentment amongst our male employees and, thankfully, this is not what is being proposed in Harriet Harman's white paper.

Title: Sarbanes Oxley and All Similar Legislation Should Be Repealed Content: Thank you. Your points are marked as >>. >>Why must those statements be honest by law? Is it because they are economically potent? Then pretty much every advertisement would be banned. Are you saying that there should be no law against falsifying financial statements? Advertisements employ the art of persuasion, where rhetoric and innuendo are appropriate. Financial statements should be factually accurate by law because altering them with incorrect information and causing people to invest money based on that false information is exactly the kind of thing which people should be prohibited from doing. >>Some companies fail because of corporate malfeasance, but not all of them. In fact, the vast majority of them don't… [a]nd when one corporation fails, its productivity in society doesn't evaporate forever. I understand that most corporate failures don't occur from corporate malfeasance. In fact, I spoke on that point in the first round. I also understand that economies eventually recover and that successful businesses absorb their weaker and defunct competition. However, just because corporate fraud doesn't affect every company does not mean it should be left unregulated by law. >>I do not think it is the business of the government … to manipulate what people feel, period. To say otherwise is paternalistic and naive at best, totalitarian at worst. I never said or implied that the government should manipulate the way people feel. I was discussing the social harm associated with the dishonest and fraudulent activity of corporate executives – which you argue does not exist because Corporate America is not homogeneous? You argued in the first round that corporate failures do not cause a social harm. Your blanket assertion did not distinguish between the different causes of those failures. However, even if you intended to limit your argument to corporate failures caused by white collar crime, my position still holds. Corporations are connected to every part of society in some form or another. A corporate failure creates problems for society beyond its employees and investors. Corporations are suppliers, distributors and manufacturers of goods and products that keep society going. The effects of corporate failures, without distinction, are not isolated to investors and employees. A failure caused by white collar dishonesty just brings a criminal element into the mix and that is why SOX is there. SOX is not intended to protect investors from corporate failure; it is intended, in part, to protect investors from crooked practices. >>This current economic crisis is occurring for reasons that have nothing to do with embezzlement and everything to do with inflated government credit. I did not address the causes of the current economic crisis in the first round. I discussed the current economic crisis in the context of social harm, specifically in connection with Corporate America, which includes banks, car manufacturers and finance companies. You claim that a social harm does not exist. When businesses fail, it affects more than just the investors and employees, who make up a large portion of society anyway. It affects consumers, related businesses and economies as well. This effect equates to a social harm. >>[I]t is sufficient that investors detect "red flags[.]" Sufficient for what? Early detection of a dubious investment is a utopian notion. In reality, deception often goes undetected for a substantial period of time or occurs after a period of ostensibly legitimate activity and practices. Such was the case in all of the pre-SOX corporate debacles. Red flags don't just pop up at the first instance of fraudulent activity. By the time they do, it may already be too late. To equate spotting a crack-head on the edge of a sketchy neighborhood to recognizing sophisticated and surreptitious white collar crime is a bit of a stretch. >>Whose interests do these concerns serve if not those of shareholders? Who would care about any of this besides the shareholders? SOX serves the interests of people who disagree with the notion of getting ripped off, which includes me, the government and an overwhelming majority of the country. >>There are many ways for smart shareholders to protect themselves from liars and crooks. They can run the companies themselves, they can gather enough competent, trustworthy contacts to fill those positions, etc. Why should the government have a hand in this? Assuming it should, what are the limits of their involvement? A large number of shareholders cannot practically or effectively run a corporation without delegating certain roles to certain members. SOX sets a legal standard for these trusted positions, as it should for the power they hold. It is not an intrusion into capitalism. It is a barrier to crooked capitalism. It is a response to the pattern of corrupt and selfish behavior of Corporate America where criminal minds use numbers as weapons. The government should "have a hand in this" because it carries the authority of law and the teeth of enforceability. Businesses cannot put people behind bars. >>When you own a company, that company is yours. At the same time, a corporation is not nearly as concrete or vital to the owner's survival as, say, a house. You live in your house; your house is necessary for your warmth and protection, and so the police help protect it. The same is not true of a corporation. Are you saying the law should only protect property that is necessary to survival? The law protects me from someone stealing my wallet, even if I only had $1 in it. So why shouldn't it protect me from someone stealing my investments? In the context of Corporate America, SOX decreases the incentive, opportunity and means to cheat the public and allows for the harsh punishment of those who attempt to do so. I see nothing wrong with that purpose, and I support the government's role in effecting that goal.

Title: Employers hiring facebook users Content: I think Pro may have a difficult argument to make with several issues that need to be addressed What if one does not have a Facebook account? What if one has multiple accounts? Why give up privacy? Would you have access to all other employee Facebook like your boss's or the CEO's(a matter of reciprocity) If one's private life s not affecting one's work then why should a company be interested in my personal life. It seems clear to me that if one gives their employer rights to view their Facebook page that the employer may use this info as they please giving the employee a disadvantage when it come to negotiation and job security. Other than access to a larger pool of jobs, Pro will need to show what advantages his proposal will entail and how they may overcome the disadvantages of working for a big brother-like employer.

Title: Early payment of bills will boost economy Content: Hi, Thanks for accepting. Regarding your aside: 1) Next time I will back up my arguments in an earlier stage. 2) The reference to my blog has been made, as I have made a short summary of my earlier 'debates'. re. I, how to finance paying earlier 1) sell excess stock & machinery 2) stop buying stationary, or anything else that is not directly related to the stuff you are selling. 4) get rid of subscriptions, lease etc, as much as possible. 5) have your sales invoices sent out as early as possible. re. II, cash value 1) Cash value does increase as shorter time periods will decrease the chance of default. Also, Trying to pay earlier makes companies think of their corporate finance structure and place in the total supply chain. Healthy management of working capital increases the value of a company. - not related to me in any way - http://www.tenzor.co.uk...

Title: Excessive regulation on the private sector puts burdens on free enterprise both in terms of administration and cost. By doing so it reduces consumer choice and acts as a drag on innovation and growth Content: This again is a myth routinely put forward by the right. Governments already distinguish between regulations that should apply to all companies and those, more onerous ones, that apply to larger companies only. There are certain standards in terms of health and safety of foodstuffs, products and so forth. However, there is clearly a different role when it comes to regulating larger companies such as banks, insurance companies and major employers. There are particular sectors that require more regulation than others but the bulk of regulation is there to protect both staff and customers and it is part of the reality of doing business. The idea that regulation harms small business is simply absurd as they benefit from the regulation of larger businesses who may be either their suppliers or customers are also regulated. Equally start-up companies benefit from the fact that regulation evens up the playing field with more established competitors. If nobody is allowed to cut corners or perform other mildly criminal acts it is clearly an advantage to the new starters.

Title: Traditional businesses are better than cooperatives Content: I agree that cooperatives are not good for investment returns. I mean, the basic structure of them means the only stock holders are the workers themselves, as they own the business. So, it's true that not a single individual will make a lot of money, however, cooperatives make it so that each of the workers will typically earn more than workers of a traditional business(since the profit the business owner(s) in a traditional business makes would be split among the workers). No single worker will make more than a person at the top would, but I consider it unnecessary for a person to be at the top of a business when cooperatives have proved they are not necessary. Really, all they're there for is to take a percentage of the companies profits and make the workers be paid less. The workers themselves can do all the decision making of a business, and they have proved to be better in some instances than traditional businesses, as outlined above in my previous round of argument. If my opponent is still willing to debate, I would ask them to elaborate on these "immense benefits" they talked about when the operator of a business in a traditional business makes more money. You sort of talked in a generality there and didn't offer any specifics. I suppose I'll leave this round at this, since there is not much to rebut in pro's argument, as most of it was generality and not a specific case.

Title: Resolved: The Letter of the Law Ought to Have Priority Over the Spirit of the Law. Content: Letter of the Law ArgumentOh, I understand your circumstances completely, and it's a pity that you didn't respond to most of my arguments. I will begin by responding to rebuttals, and then I will summarize my arguments.My opponent only chose to respond to my second rebuttal, where I challenged him to provide an example as to how he could "easily evade taxes" because of the loopholes [in the tax code], and how that "evasion would be completely legal." He replied by giving me two examples. First, my opponent contended that he could legally evade taxes by creating a business in a tax haven, and then channeling his money into it.The issue with this is that it isn't a loophole at all. He cannot send money to an offshore business unless he has earned money. He cannot earn money without it being considered taxable income. Therefore he wouldn't be evading taxes at all, at least not "legally," because he would have to pay taxes when he earns that money in the first place.Second, my opponent contended that he could legally evade taxes by bartering in commodities, which would not be taxed, and then trade those commodities for cash.Even if this is a "common" occurrence, it is not at all "completely legal." Bartering income, as in this case, is included as taxable income, and you are required to include that in your taxes[1]. Failing to include this in your taxes is not a "legal" loophole, it is a crime, one that would not be any more enforceable if the law was interpreted by the Spirit. Summary of Debate. This debate was on whether or not the Letter of the Law ought to be prioritized over the Spirit of the Law. I was arguing that when we interpret the laws, we should prioritize the Letter of the Law over the Spirit of the Law. My opponent argued the opposite.Was the conclusion of this debate that the Spirit should be prioritized over the Letter, or visa versa? As the voter, you will decide this. I will summarize this debate to show you why I won.My three primary contentions went through the entire debate well-established, and they were hardly challenged, if at all. My first contention was that prioritizing the Letter over the Spirit is just, and ensures that all men are judged by the same standard. My sub-points of this contention went virtually unchallenged, especially my example. The contention itself was only challenged with a proposition as to how a court maybe could interpret a law, which was refuted by an unchallenged rebuttal that the Letter was still superior in ensuring justice, even in his scenario.My second contention was that the Letter contains the benefits of the Spirit without the drawbacks, a contention only challenged with a fallacious example on the tax code. I showed how my opponent's example committed the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy, a stipulation conceded by my opponent.My third contention was that my opponent's proposition violates the rights of individuals by punishing people for the purpose of maintaining ethics, rather than to maintain justice. This point was completely conceded, and my opponent only addressed it to note how in his opinion, the Spirit would be interpreted contrary to the rules of this debate, a point that I called him out on, and he conceded.My opponent made multiple different contentions, all of which I have rebutted.First, he contended that if the Spirit does not take precedence, loopholes form, and the law loses all meaning. He gave an example with his "Do not disturb your neighbor" law. I rebutted this easily, establishing that direct language gives the law more meaning than a vague social consensus, and I gave the speed limit example to show that not all laws have loopholes, and some only have loopholes when interpreted through the Spirit. These points were conceded by my opponent, and his contention fails.Next, he proposed that we ought to write laws differently, and provide better training to judges, in order to have a cleaner legal system. I pointed out that this was completely irrelevant to the debate, a point that my opponent also conceded.My opponent also proposed an "iPod" example too show that we don't need formal judges for everyday life. However, I pointed out the debate is on how we should apply existing law, and therefore his example is not relevant to the debate. He conceded this point.Next, my opponent proposed that different cases should set a standard for future cases. However, I contended that even if we used his proposed method for interpretation, the Letter would still be superior when interpreted, a point that my opponent conceded.Finally, my opponent contends that it is "impossible" to cover "any" loopholes when a specific law is interpreted with the letter, and that we should prioritize the spirit because it's the only way to "make sure" the law is followed. I brought up the speed limit example, an example my opponent conceded, to show that just because laws are specific does not mean that there are loopholes, that just because there are loopholes does not mean that the law is not being followed, and that his point regardless lacks relevance to this debate. All of these points were conceded by my opponent.It has been fully established in this debate that the Letter of the Law ought to be prioritized over the Spirit of the Law, because doing so is the only way to ensure justice, because it includes the benefits of the Spirit without the drawbacks, and because my opponent's proposition seeks to punish for the purpose of maintaining ethics as opposed to maintaining justice. My opponent's numerous points are not only proven false, but even if they weren't, they would still fail to back up his side of the resolution.Therefore, I conclude that I have won this debate.[1]http://www.efile.com...—Thanks for the fun debate! Remember that you can't actually respond to anything I've said here, or said beforehand, without violating the debate format. You may only summarize the argument, and explain to voters why you won. Thanks again!

Title: That we should ban anonymous online accounts Content: I have outlined my round, so lets get right to it:Banning anonymous online accounts hurts "everyone". The simple fact of the matter is that we as a person demand a certain degree of privacy when we conduct transactions, whatever they may be. I don't want websites to know who I am when conducting business with them, I am a person, with money, whom wants their services. That is really all any transaction should ever be. Assuming we remove the veil of being anonymous, we have now opened ourselves up to the various pitfalls of what could happen. Why should anyone do business with a felon? If you are who you are, online, I just run a credit and background check, and find you unworthy of patronage. How many "auction" based websites would simply remove the clientel they feel is not up to standard of auction for their site? The economy can't support immediate presupposition and investigation of all financial activity, which is inevitably where such would lead. I will move on to my most damning of points regarding this later, which I find to really be the center piece of my argument when it comes to being anonymous online. Stealing moneyIdentity theft is caused from some one being the exact opposite of being anonymous: they are posing as a real life person. They have access to your resources because they have technologically pilfered all the requisites to posing as you. Were online accounts to be restricted to a traceable source, it guarantees more information to the thieves in which to build their "you" disguise. This is point being brought up by con is such a detriment, I am surprised it was even mentioned. Closing RemarksYes. I down play cyber bullying. If you are holding a hot potato, what do you do? If you are smelling an offensive smell, what do you do? If you are reading offensive material, what do you do? Pro would argue that its not your responsibility to judge what is offensive, and instead track to a source what could be construed as offensive by subjective audience. I down play cyber bullying because Pro would have you down play your involvement in how you react to what you find objectionable. Oblique sanitization is the resultant of an "closed" Internet. There is no contrary point of view. DDO would not exist were accounts traceable to a direct person, and I think my opponent tipped their hand in the following:"My view on anonymity being beneficial is that there is no point being anonymous if you have nothing to hide. "I don't know who you are. I have no idea how strong the courage of your conviction runs, I have no idea if you would do harm to me or my family because I can and will vote against you in local politics. I have a lot to gain and hold by hiding from people of opposition. The quote given by pro demonstrates the naiveté that is part of the human condition: some people want to silence opposition. By whatever means necessary. Frankly, I would much rather NOT give the tools to such miscreants, but. .. that is for our voters to decide.

Title: The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done Content: The argument leads to a slippery slope. It is one thing to regulate speech on matters that are objectively verifiable, quite another to restrict the permissible scope of opinion and expression. Even then, the state should be extremely cautious about declaring a state of objective fact. People taking advice on matters such as tax always take the risk that that advice may turn out to be bad, the amount of risk a person is willing to take is entirely a matter of personal responsibility and not a matter that the government should intervene in.

Title: All public parks and nature areas should be sold off and privatized in the USA. Content: Pro clearly stated in Round 2 that my bare assertion was " true only because my opponent says it is true". He is saying that because I said it should not be privatized, it is true. His following arguments are nullified, as he admits I am right.

Title: Free trade upholds the freedom of individuals to engage in trade Content: Individuals have a right to engage in trade with other individuals across borders and without restrictions. This right is certainly protected within modern liberal democracies, it should now also be protected in the world at large between global citizens.

Title: Privacy is undervalued Content: I am resolved that privacy is not undervalued. For, as we will see, the value of unity is being harmed by the current high valuing of privacy. Let’s begin with a brief resolutional analysis. RA 1: Determining value.The resolution states “privacy is undervalued.” Yet in order for us to prove that privacy is undervalued, we must first discover the value of privacy. However, pro has failed to do this as demonstrated in analysis point two. RA 2: Privacy is amoral.Privacy is not intrinsically valuable. Instead, its value depends on its results. Thus, in order to determine the value of privacy, we must determine the value of its results. Unfortunately, pro has failed to do this and thus, we cannot know that privacy is undervalued since we have no idea of how it ought to be valued. RA 3: Value Hierarchy.When two values come into conflict, a decision must be made as to which is more valuable, demonstrating that one is in fact more valuable than another. From this we can see that values are hierarchical by nature. RA 4: Moving up the hierarchy.When the resolution states that privacy is undervalued, it claims that privacy is valued too low within this hierarchy, also implying that it ought to be moved up the hierarchy. What pro must demonstrate then is that a specific value in the hierarchy is currently being wrongfully valued above privacy. Otherwise, privacy is not undervalued. However, pro has not done this and therefore has not proven that privacy is undervalued. I, on the other hand, will prove that privacy ought to move down the hierarchy. Now let’s examine pro’s case, in which were brought up a host of privacy violations. The problem is that violations do not equal undervalued. Using violations of privacy as proof that privacy is undervalued assumes that violation of privacy is a bad thing. Yet violation of privacy is only bad if privacy is undervalued. Thus, pro is using circular reasoning to prove to you that privacy is undervalued. In addition, it is often the case in privacy violations that privacy is not being undervalued, but rather that something else is being valued above privacy, which is not the same thing. Let’s look at some of these examples pro brought up. Of course, I can't in any way respond to all of them, but I will try to cover as many as possible by lumping them into three main groups. Application 1: Governments One of the main examples brought up in each of pro’s three contentions was governments’ violations of people’s privacy. Yet pro said something very interesting: that governments oppose privacy because it is seen as a screen for illegal and disruptive behavior. Now why would privacy be seen as a screen for illegal or disruptive behavior? I believe that it is because privacy often is used as a screen for illegal behavior. Consider the TSA. Just two weeks ago, 40 firearms were discovered, 31 of which were loaded.[1] The government, rather than undervaluing privacy, is simply valuing our lives above privacy. Application 2: Media Two arguments were brought up here. First, the media undervalues the privacy of public figures. However, we need to realize that the livelihood of many of these depend upon this publicity. Second, we have no privacy in a public place. I would disagree. By going out in public, we have in essence authorized anyone to view us. Thus, this is not privacy based on the accepted definition of privacy. Application 3:cyber-criminals The problem with accusing any criminals (cyber or otherwise) of undervaluing privacy is that this actually demonstrates a proper valuing of privacy by the rest of society, since society recognizes that undervaluing privacy is criminal. I will now proceed to prove that privacy is in fact overvalued. We will see this through my value of unity, which we will define as “concord, harmony, or agreement.” My criterion, or the way in which we will achieve my value is communication, which is defined as, “The art of expressing ideas.” We will see that the current high valuing of privacy has lead to a loss of unity. Contention 1: Unity in the family. Pro mentioned people messing with our belongings as well as invading our space and using our property. However, on the individual level, we find that privacy is actually overvalued.Application 1: Privacy of the ChildWriter James Tower once wrote, “Today’s families are more disconnected than ever. Even in a world that has more means of communication than at any other point in history, we struggle to connect with each other.” I believe that this lack of communication and subsequent disunity is the result of an overvaluing of privacy. The movement commonly called “privacy of the child” has so effected families that they consider it a protection of each individual’s rights to keep matters private from the rest of the family through lack of communication, which in turn leads to a lack of unity. Pro talked about addressing all issues of privacy, and yet he narrowed it down to privacy of the individual. While I agree that this is a fundamental part of privacy, I do not believe that the resolution implies this limitation. In the next two contentions, we will see two aspects which were unaddressed: society to government, and nation to nation. Contention 2: National unity Privacy harms unity within a nation. Application 2: Executive Privilege.For this application, we will need to define one key term: Executive Privilege, defined by Webster’s Dictionary as, “the discretionary right claimed by certain U.S. presidents to withhold information from Congress or the judiciary.” After a failed operation planned by the Bureau for Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, suspicious politicians requested more information concerning the operation. However, in June of 2012, President Obama appealed to executive privilege in order to keep certain information from Congress. This protection of privacy resulted in a storm of discord, with blame cast on the ATF, the Justice Department, and the President for the failed operation. This storm of accusation from the Republicans led to an equally hot response from the Democrats as they criticized the Republicans for making a mountain out of a molehill. All this discord simply because of an overvaluing of the Executive Branch’s privacy. Discord among the various governmental branches is all too common because of such privacy protecting privileges as executive privilege. Contention 3: International Unity.Privacy also harms unity internationally.Application two: operation fast and furious. When the Bureau for Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives formed a plan to capture certain high-up drug-dealers, many of the guns they had intended to use as bait escaped, crossing the border into Mexico. Unfortunately, the ATF kept the knowledge of what was occurring from the Mexican Government as well as from ATF agents in Mexico. According to political analyst Ray Walser, “ATF officials remained unresponsive to queries from Mexico.” Unfortunately, as the plan began to backfire, this protection of privacy fostered distrust and discord between Mexico and the U.S. As Darren D. Gil, former ATF attaché to Mexico, lamented, “why were ATF personnel in Mexico kept in the dark on this operation [OFF], which has now imperiled trust and cooperation between U.S. and Mexican law enforcement at a time when that trust and cooperation is more essential than ever?”I reserve the right to defend the value of unity in subsequent rounds.Clearly, privacy is overvalued, for it is being wrongfully valued above the value of unity. Thus, I am resolved that privacy is overvalued and ought to move down the hierarchy of values.

Title: It results in Western companies getting kicked out of the countries, damaging significant Western businesses Content: Western companies must be governed by codes of ethics. These should not merely stop at the border of their home state. If they are to be ethical actors they must uphold the freedoms they claim to value. If this means not being able to profit massively in markets so be it. Western governments should have little sympathy for firms profiting from and aiding in the oppression of peoples.

Title: Imposing a ban on earmarking will destabilise congrerss Content: A ban is perfectly possible and Congress has come close already, for example with the house banning earmarks to for profit companies.[1] [1] Kane, Paul, ‘House bans earmarks to for-profit companies’, 2010

Title: Philanthropic Efforts From Companies Like TOMS and Charities like Livestrong Should Not Exist. Content: What you're addressing is precisely the problem here, among others of course. And I'm surprised you're more afraid of my "conspiracy theoristic" view of thinking, because I'm not making it up, these companies admit what they're doing, wholeheartedly in fact. But more on that later. To address what you said: Why shouldn't a company be able to improve its reputation? That misses the point of this debate entirely. If the question is aimed at what the company is doing for its own self-interests, and yes reputation is nothing but a self-interest, then it automatically cannot be of use in charity if it is a priority. Another way to more simply put my answer to that: their reputation, and building of it, has no bearing on this discussion. Another point: "They are helping people." How are they helping people exactly? You haven't given me any examples. It would be to shallow of me to mention companies that "seem" like they are aimed at doing good. Let's mention a different company, like Starbucks for example. They have a big emphasis on "good coffee karma", whatever that means. Underneath that "karma" idea is that they try "their best" to provide coffee that is sustainable and is considered fair trade. On the surface that isn't such a bad thing, I am a major supporter of free trade practices. HOWEVER, they advocate free trade practices as long as Starbucks is the vehicle. Their free trade, sustainable, and "good karma" practices are in reality aimed at increased profits, and bettering their own company, and as you mentioned before boosting reputation. You make another point: "People can just but [sic] from another, cheaper company and then donate to a charity." Realistically, do you think that actually happens? Let's just think about it for a moment, a person is going to not buy something from say, TOMS, and they are looking for something cheaper, from another company. That is very common. Why are they looking for something cheaper from someone else? Because they are trying to save money. Now, let's add on that other bit you mentioned "and then donate to a charity". If people are seeking to save money, why would they take the money they saved and donate it it a charity? Realistically, in this situation, they wouldn't. Why? Because they are looking to save money. If they are looking to donate to a charity, the system is already in place, they can buy something a touch more expensive because what they are spending will go into a charitable effort. I think you miss my point entirely when you say I have a "conspiracy theoristic" way of thinking. I am not against charity or philanthropy whatsoever. But what companies actually "might JUST want to help someone". That would go against their existence as a company. A company's aim is to create a business that would generate a revenue for the interests of its creators and shareholders. If it JUST wanted to help someone, that would be against their own interests. You also miss my point when I say what these companies are doing are wrong. The aim in my argument is not to do away with charity, but to do away with the idea that one can put a face on capitalism, which is exactly what companies like Starbucks and TOMS are doing. They perpetuate the idea of "I can justify my needless materialism as long as I know that a little of what I'm spending will go to some sort of charity". Realistically, will that contribution be enough to really make a difference? Probably not. Why? Because the system of capitalism, in essence, gives rise to the situations that allow for poverty here in the United States and everywhere else in the world. To put it in other words it is like having a man that will inevitable die lying in a hospital bed with an I.V. in his arm that would just barely keep him alive, but in the worst conditions. The answer then, in my opinion, is to have a radical shift in our way of thinking of charity and philanthropy. First it consists of doing away with this notion of "cultural capitalism", and to adopt and implement a more rigorous theory of emancipate philosophy to provide an answer. What I mean by that is to cause a break in the capitalistic, and democratic (the political/governmental system not the political party) systems that allows for the presence of charity in the first place. People need to abolish current systems and practices in such a way that to continue with this new emancipate theory that it does not allow for the case of poverty and etc. to arise.

Title: On balance, corporate contributions to political candidates are harmful to the democratic process Content: I accept this round. Recall that my obligation is not to argue that corporate contributions should be banned, indeed doing so would violate the first amendment and private property rights, but rather to show that they are indeed harmful. I do not know how my opponent wishes to define "democratic process", but I'll simply define it as the act of legislators passing meaningful and useful legislation beneficial to the country, mostly in accordance with the will of the people. Back to Pro

Title: Standards should be placed on orginizations that Have the word News in the Title Content: My opponent declined to respond to my prior citation of the Journalistic Code of Ethics I can only state the following as there is nothing for me to debate. It is reasonable to require that the individual reporting News is qualified and has integrity. The fact that the code of ethics for a journalist prohibits bias in the reporting of the news wholly supports this. Simply put Regulation is necessary if we want the factual truth in any situation.

Title: Businesses should have the right to refuse service. Content: I apologize for the delay in responding. There are no yes/no questions. Trying to solve complex issues with simple solutions is one of our nation's greatest problems. Even with cross-examination in Court, witnesses are allowed re-direct to explain their "yes/no" answers. Businesses should only have the right to refuse service when it is reasonable considering the behavior of the person being refused service. For example, if a patron at a restaurant decided to urinate on the tables, I believe we could all agree that it is reasonable for the owner to refuse service to said patron. Your argument that business owners should be allowed to refuse service because there will always be five other businesses that will take the potential patron's business is severely flawed. History proves this not to be the case. Were their five other businesses willing to take African-American customers during the Jim Crow days in the South? No, there were not. The reason is that business owners just as others in society follow a "herd" mentality. This "herd" method of reasoning stems from a business seeing another business following a practice and fearing it will fall behind that business if it does not emulate the practice. This "fear" of falling behind is the reason we have market bubbles. Intelligent investors such as Warren Buffett have become very wealthy by playing the contrarian position to the "crowd's" irrational fears as well as their irrational exuberance. Since businesses do not behave rationally in the "short run" and people's rights are infringed in the "short run," we must have laws to regulate businesses. Failing to have regulatory laws would be like a football game where there is no "out of bounds." Imagine the game where the receiver could run up into the stands to catch a ball and then go back into the field of play to score a touchdown! The team on offense would love these rules. The defense would not be so enthusiastic. The patrons of the game probably would not care for being run over by football players either. The point is, regulations are an absolute necessity within a free market economy, otherwise, you will have "too big to fail" banks crashing our economy! I will note that sometimes, such banks will even use bailout money provided by the government, to lobby the government against regulating said banks, so that these banks can continue to perform foolish acts without having to be bothered by the government! My point is, the owner should have the right to refuse when it is reasonable. "Reasonable" is what society deems as reasonable. There is no "slippery slope" in having such a common sense solution. The greatest thing to fear about "slippery slopes" is fear of "slippery slopes" themselves. No one ever said governing and regulating a free enterprise democracy would be easy.

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

Title: The Federal Government should mandate that stocks must pay dividends Content: First of all, by issuing these bonds and encouraging investors to take them instead of cash, the companies in question ARE simply reinvesting the profits, to be paid out at a later date. And smart investors will generally prefer the profits be reinvested because that would improve later profits and therefore their dividends. This makes (a) the company more beholden to the investors' interests and if the bonds are issued to be paid at specific dates, (b) the investors will be much more likely to invest in stable companies likely to survive and prosper up to the day the bond matures. [I need clarification on what exactly your second sentence states, so I'll move directly to sentence #3]. "Economy", like "country" is a specific entity and CAN be harmed. GDP is an example; if a country's GDP is lower, it's economy is not doing as well, and if a country's GDP growth rate is lower, then it's not developing as well. If you want to argue that the "economy" was not harmed by the 1929 stock market crash, I welcome you to try, but I doubt you could pull that off. And to force someone to do something "for their own good" is neither what I'm trying to do, nor something necessarily bad anyways. This mandate is supposed to prevent or limit the boom/bust cycle, which does make certain individuals and firms very wealthy but as a whole drags the economy downward. And all safety laws are based on forcing someone to do something for their own good. If you want a more accurate analogy for my idea, how about drunk driving? Drunk drivers not only pose a threat to themselves, but also a threat to those around them -- same as a bubble economy and those who cause it pose an economic threat to those in it. Many people who didn't get involved in the housing speculation have seen their net worths go down, not to mention the added drag of shouldering the burden of the bailout and the increase in national debt. Therefore, your assertion that the risk of company collapse belongs to the company and its associates is true -- but only in theory. In practice, large firms looking to invest their money don't research the companies or securities they invest in themselves -- they rely on ratings given by a handful of companies. And when a company falls and its assets turn toxic, it can drag down a lot of other companies that had otherwise been very prudent, not to mention placing the aforementioned economic burden on society-at-large. And, ultimately, it has been proved time and time again that the biggest falls of modern economies were when they corrected for overenthusiastic speculation. One final point: A good you purchase only for the purpose of speculation is a good that will eventually collapse. Everyone will see that they have been running on thin air and stock prices will collapse. However, if we give stocks real worth by mandating dividend payments, this collapse can be averted.

Title: The US should subsidize the development of a national commodity exchange Content: I) PrefaceI want to start the debate by stating, that I am arguing the US should instate a national commodity exchange. I am not arguing that I should start my own corporatation and manage every idea. I appreciate the oppositions aptitude for asking questions, and I will answer as many as I can, but there is a fine line between debating the institution of a policy and arguing every little minor detail for it. For example, imagine me and the opposition were arguing National Healthcare. I would be required to prove national healthcare could work, but not write my own bill for it. My opponent is asking for something that can't be summarized in 8000 characters, and even if it could, is not required for the BOP. You see, I only need prove that a national commodity exchange within the boundaries of the 4 bullets would work. Not the million bullets that were straw manned. Which is why it is preferrable to wait for your opponents opening arguments before asking questions. So, I hope this is clear to my opponent and the audience. I am required to debate this like any other debate. Not draft a bill solely for the purpose of a three round debate.And I apologize for forfeiting, and I didn't do this on purpose. I was busy that day, and this slipped by me. With that said, I don't appreciate the rudeness that appropriated from my forfeit. That was outright uncalled for. II) QuestionsMy opponent has asked many questions, and as I said, I'm happy to answer all the ones relevant to the debate. Although he makes it very easy, as this institution exists in several nations already. Not to mention that there are several commodity exchanges that coexist within Illinois, that operate in the exact same manner I have layed out.- My opponent brings up questions on multi national corporations. I take it he doesn't frequent the stock market much? A commodity exchange operates not much differently from a stock, forex, or bond exchange. Multi Nationals invest by paying from their accounts. My opponent made a uncharged claim, and the process is as simple as applying your investment under you corporations name. As done with several commodity exchanges. My opponent seems to be confusing market exchanges with funnel banks. Which makes me wonder if he even knows what a commodity exchange is.- Second question my opponent brings up, is regarding commisions. Seriously? My opponent does know that we are talking about institutions in the vein of USFR and not washington commitees. There is nothing more to say here. My opponent got commitees confused with commisions. Anyways, I'll clarify regardless. The New York Stock Exchange is oversaw by a commision. Several energy exchanges are oversaw by commisions. Hell, we have 21 for profit corporations that are ran by federal commisions. They are simply appointed by the government to oversee something. It is not their duty to prosecute crimes, or whatever nonsense my opponent has confused commisions with. This can be scrapped up as a simple misunderstanding of the resolution. He should of questioned in the comments if he didn't know a definition. Commsions, as I said, are appointed like any of the other million we have by the US customs department.- My opponent made an outright silly question regarding commodity. He assumed that people were forced to trade through the exchange. For example, he stated that people would have to buy water and air from an exchange. This is silly nonsense. If my resolution doesn't say that you are forced to buy from the exchange, then you don't have to. Water can be bought and sold like normal, just as every other commodity can. Exchanges simply serve as a more efficient method. to do so. Honestly, my opponent shouldn't of made a straw man like that. It actually made me LMAO.- The opposition has raised a question on subsidies. Very simple. You just stimulus spend until a company gets off the ground willing to follow your guidelines. I think its upsetting that we have 9 commodity exchanges, but buyer and sellers are forced to go through Indian and European exchanges. We are behind in this area. Also, the commodity exchange can be self sufficient through a 10% product tax. COE is a prime example.- My opponent has brought up the only worthwhile question thus far, and the only problem that is US specific, and has been solved in other nations who have instated commodity exchanges. Immediately I noticed he didn't understand what a commodity tax is. He says "why would anyone pay 10% when commodities cost a fraction of a penny". First of all, no commodity costs a fraction of a penny. Commodities are raw materials, and no one purchases silk for .2$. Even so, you're only paying 10% of the exchange, or for example, 10% of the cost of the commodity you buy. This functions in the same manner as a sales tax. Also, futures are not raw materials and therefore are not comodities. The opposition has shown a complete lack of knowledge for what he is debating.- Final question the opposition asks is how to prevent firm manipulation. This is not the problem of CE's alone. This exists in every exchange, although the opposition keeps showing that he doesn't know what he's debating. He thinks this is a futures or stock exchange, which is why arguing this is frustrating. Firms do not control the rates of commodity prices. Anyone who studies energy markets knows that trends go up and down from a stagnant starting point. Unlike stocks where the share price is determined by the firm, the prices are entirely that of the seller. The good thing about commodity exchanges, is that investment firms are not needed for the process to run, so it can't be manipulated.III) Benefits of a National Commodity ExchangeOver the course of this debate, my opponent has shown an inabillity to comphrehend what we are arguing. I don't blame him. My resolution looked strikingly simmalar to the institution of a national stock exchange (which we have), but at the end of the day, that is not what were arguing. The US is behind in terms of promoting trade and economic movement. Most of our trading is done in the form of buying shares to commodities overseas. Unlike several smart nations, who found it beneficial to control the commodities and not the shares to commodity companies, the US is stuck using overseas economic stimulation. Why is the USNCE beneficial? Simple. Americans need an internet market where they can buy and sell goods.That is ALL my proposal is advoccating for. A online market, regulated by the federal government, where people can buy and sell commodities. The state of Illinois owns 7 commodity exchanges, but where are the people of Texas buying their goods? How is New York stimulating food consumption? The simple answer is through buying imports. Imports cost tariffs, and national buying and selling does not. There is a major flaw in my opponents debating style. He choose to argue all the troubles that setting up an institution would take. He already conceded that there are several commodity exchanges already existing in the US. What he didn't concede, is why we can't have one more. The same questions he asked have all been explained through existing systems. This is no different from the 100 or so exchanges internationally. Until my opponent can provide proof that a market for the buying and selling of commodities among the American people is bad, the BOP is 100% affirmed.I thank Con for the fun debate. Sorry I forfeited. As I said, completely forgot. For my sources, I provided the links to actual working commodity exchanges which follow the exact same system I provided, and are 100% successful. There is no more need to be behind in trade. This has worked for every country its been implimented in. It can work for ours as well.http://www.ncdex.com...http://www.cmegroup.com...https://www.theice.com...http://www.ncdex.com...http://www.mgex.com... http://www.youtube.com...

Title: Federally-Held Corporations are the best method for administering social programs. Content: I sympathize with your points on administration and finance. However the I would disagree with you to say you get the best of both worlds and ditch the problems. First of all I am sorry if in my first statement I did not make clear that the corporation in question would be 100% in the hands of the Federal Government. A charter for the corporation would be written, much like the Banks of the United States or the FDIC, outlining the specifics of what the corporation can and cannot do. Administrative decisions would be handled by the Board of Directors, all federal appointees and therefore under congressional oversight. Acting in an independent capacity, such as the Federal Reserve, the company would execute it's charter. Overall, social programs such as health insurance, workman's compensation, unemployment insurance would be handled by a citizen paying in a comparatively small premium in relation to tax dollars which can potentially go anywhere. Federally-held corporations offer efficiency and stability for the lowest possible cost. To specifically deal with your points: 1. Yes, the government can dictate policy but any major changes in the services rendered by the corporation would be a breach of contract, which is illegal. 2. The corporation in question would fall under non-profit tax law. While regulation could be an issue the FDIC has operated quietly for years without any major difficulties.

Title: If We Legalize Gay Marriage, We Must Enact Protection Laws for the Rights of Churches! Content: I contend that current laws, particularly the first amendment to the Constitution, are sufficient. The government cannot force private organizations to perform such services. Would you mind citing this "article" you read?

Title: Resolved: The Letter of the Law Ought to Have Priority Over the Spirit of the Law. Content: Thanks! You made some very good points. I'm glad that we can have a civilized and intelligent discussion on a topic such as this. Now, to dive right in!This is my final opportunity to introduce new contentions, and I have chosen not to. Instead, I will respond to my opponent's rebuttals, and rebut his points.First, my opponent proposes that in order to ensure a fair standard, different cases should should set a standard for future cases. That interpreting the law by the spirit would set standards for similar cases in the future.My opponent makes a fine proposal, however, the letter provides for this in the same way. Using other instances in which the law has been previously applied is a legal strategy that works in either instance, letter or spirit. However, the Letter of the Law provides for this better, because in the Spirit of the Law, the moral and social consensus would be prioritized over previous cases. Meaning, that a just interpretation of the law would still be thrown out in favor of an unjust moral and social consensus.Second, my opponent gives an example in response to my second contention. He states that with the tax code, the letter is prioritized, but the problem is that it's so excessive in length that very few understand it completely. He notes that he could easily evade taxes because of loopholes, and that his "evasion would be completely legal." He contends that if the tax code were written simpler, it would have no loopholes.In response, I first contend that his example is committing Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, by assuming that interpreting the tax code by the letter is the reason why it is so lengthy. The U.S. Tax Code is lengthy because of the type of taxes we have implemented, not because of how they are interpreted.I also challenge my opponent to provide an example as to how he could "easily evade" taxes "because of the loopholes," and how that "evasion would be completely legal."Third, my opponent notes that he would rather interpret the Spirit of the Law as judging based on what the law is intended to do, rather than what the law specifically says.I set the definition of the Spirit being what the social and moral consensus of the law's interpretation is, because it's oftentimes difficult to determine the original intent. So unfortunately, that is the definition we are debating. As a note, when I say "ethics," I am referring to the social and moral consensus without wanting to use up too many characters.Fourth, my opponent clarifies his "iPod" example, noting his point was that in day to day life, we don't need formal judges and lawyers for everything, because we follow the spirit of the law for ourselves.My opponent's point does little to strengthen his argument or relate to the resolution. This debate is on how the law should be interpreted when it must be applied, not on how often we must apply it. However, I would encourage my opponent to keep this point in mind. My opponent's point may have missed the resolution of this debate completely, but if he adjusts his aim, he can use this point very well to suit his argument.Finally, my opponent notes that when a law is written specifically, it is "impossible" to cover "any" loopholes when interpreted with the letter. He contends that this is why we have complex laws, because we patch laws up continuously. He states that it is important to prioritize the spirit because it's the only way to make sure the law is followed.Interesting point, however, like I contended with the speed limit example, interpreting the law through the social and moral consensus causes plenty of loopholes, too. In this example, I also contended that just because laws are specific does not mean that there are loopholes.Also, in response to my opponent's contention that prioritizing the spirit is the only way to make sure the law is followed, I contend that the enforcement of the law resides outside of the judiciary, and therefore lacks relevance to this debate. I also contend that just because there are loopholes does not mean that the law is not being followed. People still follow speed limits despite the Spirit of the Law loophole, and people still pay their taxes despite any hypothetical loophole in the tax code.In Conclusion, the Letter of the Law ought to be prioritized over the Spirit of the Law, because doing otherwise would be unjust, because the Letter contains the benefits of the Spirit of the Law without the drawbacks, and because my opponent's proposition seeks to punish those for the purpose of maintaining ethics as opposed to maintaining justice.As a reminder my opponent may no longer introduce new arguments. He may rebut any new arguments I have made, and he may respond to my rebuttals of his argument. This does not mean he may not respond to my arguments in new ways, but rather that he cannot introduce a new idea. To illustrate, my opponent can say that "You're wrong on this point because of X, Y, and Z," but my opponent cannot introduce new ideas, such as "If the letter of the law is prioritized, then the fundamental concept of mercy is ignored."My opponent would also do well to remember that this next argument is his final opportunity to rebut my points and respond to my rebuttals. I would encourage him to do his best, for the spirit of humanity, and the spirit of the law.

Title: SHUT DOWN THE STOCK MARKETS Content: I agree with you that the stock market can cause people to lose large sums of money, I believe that the stock market can be unsafe to invest in, however, that is no reason to shut it down. People have the option of investing in alternatives; no one is forcing them to invest in the stock market. Therefore there is no reason to shut the markets down. Your argument can be best summarized with this example. Someone is going out to lunch and they need to find a restaurant to eat at. They choose to eat at McDonalds even through they know that the food McDonalds serves is not that healthy and can lead to cardiovascular disease. You are saying we should shut down McDonalds because it might cause someone to develop cardiovascular disease even though they could have gone to Subway or some other healthy choice for lunch. As long as you have the option to choose something wise there is no reason to outlaw the unwise.

Title: Resolved: The United States Ought Not to Provide Military Aid to Authoritarian Regimes Content: I concede the debate. You have convinced me that there are some conditions under which it may be appropriate to intervene. Under the agreed conditions, It would be dishonest for me to keep supporting my point. I would like to say that I would still keep these devil deals to a necessary minimum. Well played.

Title: Bankruptcy is a special sort of business process and so is not as well thought through by many busin... Content: Chapter 11-style provisions represent an unwelcome interference in private ordering. All of the parties involved in a company, including employees, shareholders and creditors, voluntarily opt into their involvement with the company. They have the opportunity to weigh up the risks and possible benefits, decide whether they want to be involved and take such steps as they can or desire to control risks. For the courts to intervene in an unpredictable way after the event is an unjustifiable intrusion into the private ordering which the parties have agreed between themselves. This is an intrusion upon important personal liberties and also helps to undermine the certainty and personal autonomy which underpins an environment favourable to business.

Title: Gay Marriage/Rights Content: Very well. These conditions shall apply to the debate. SSM should be allowed, because there is no valid reason not to allow SSM.

Title: Exchange-Traded Funds should be prioritized in investing rather than stock. Content: I. My opponents whole argument is plagiarizedCheck it out. I always research on investopedia and PDF traders, before talking economicshttp://www.investopedia.com...II. Stocks have more projected trade valueSimple. Stocks are more traded, and have more projected value. Therefore, we should build upon Nasdaq instead of funding small traded ETFS.I was planning on writing my infamous long picture arguments, but 500 characters. Cheers!

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

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